CW-2002-0029Agra, Uttar PradeshJudgment 23 August 2002

Government Railway Police Constable v. Superintendent of Police (Railways)

The Allahabad High Court (single Judge, 23-8-2002) dismissed the writ petition of Constable (Civil Police posted to Government Railway Police, Agra) challenging his dismissal dated 17-2-2001 under Rule 8(2)(b) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. The court found sufficient material, including statements of fellow police personnel recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, that the petitioner formed a gang and harboured criminals committing robberies on trains where he was on duty and shared the booty. The court held direct evidence of complicity could not feasibly be procured, so dispensing with a regular enquiry in public interest on Tulsiram Patel principles was justified, with no mala fides pleaded. The dismissal from service was upheld with no order as to costs; no criminal-trial component is recorded in the judgment. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

Externally reportedV2
What this record means

This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.

How verification works →

Report card

By judgment dated 23 August 2002 in C.M.W.P. No. 19352 of 2002, the Allahabad High Court (Coram: Sunil Ambwani, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Government Railway Police, Agra.

Register number
UP 80 CW 0004
Case reference
C.M.W.P. No. 19352 of 2002 / (2002) 3 UPLBEC 2765
Court and date
Allahabad High Court (Coram: Sunil Ambwani, J.), 23 August 2002
Officer(s) at the material time
Constable, Government Railway Police, Agra
Present service status
Recorded in the cited sources as dismissed from service.
Provisions invoked
Rule 8(2)(b) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991
Finding of the Court (extract)
“In my opinion, there was sufficient material on record to support the fact that the petitioner was actively involved in forming a gang and harbouring the criminals for committing crimes in trains on which he was assigned duty; that it …” (at para 7)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Disciplinary action upheld. Sentence: dismissal.
Present status of the proceedings
No further proceedings are recorded in the cited sources; the judgment is the concluded position shown.

Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.

The Allahabad High Court judgment dated 23 August 2002 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.

Recorded allegations

1
OtherPrimary
Material fact supported

Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.

Official finding: supports allegation.

What the court found

Holding not recorded separately.

“In my opinion, there was sufficient material on record to support the fact that the petitioner was actively involved in forming a gang and harbouring the criminals for committing crimes in trains on which he was assigned duty; that it …” (para 7)

Institutional response

1
23 Aug 2002

Order issued

Concluded
Allahabad High Court External · Binding

The Allahabad High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.

Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: (2002) 3 UPLBEC 2765
Not yet re-checked.

Follow-up history

1
19 Sep 2026

(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))

Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.

Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.

Keep exploring

These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.