8 Mar 2006
Order issued
ConcludedThe Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: [2007(3) JCR 449 (JHR)]
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2006-0022JharkhandJudgment 8 March 2006
CISF Constable vs Union of India and Others
The Jharkhand High Court (S.J. Mukhopadhaya J.) on 8 March 2006 dismissed the appeal of CISF constable against his dismissal from service. The court recorded that he was found sitting and dozing before a small fire while on 'C'-shift watch-tower duty on the night of 11/12 February 1992 and assaulted Inspector when caught, that both charges were proved in a departmental enquiry, and that he was dismissed on 12 October 1992. The court noted the Division Bench had already upheld the punishment in LPA No. 646 of 2002, remitting only the question of quantum to the revisional authority, which found dismissal proportionate. Agreeing that the order was appropriate and proportionate to the gravity of the charges, the court dismissed the appeal, so the dismissal stands.
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 →Detailed record
Report card
By judgment dated 8 March 2006 in Appeal against revisional rejection (number not stated); see CWJC No. 11947 of 1997 (R), LPA No. 646 of 2002, the Jharkhand High Court (Coram: S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, CISF.
- Register number
- JH 00 CW 0003
- Case reference
- Appeal against revisional rejection (number not stated); see CWJC No. 11947 of 1997 (R), LPA No. 646 of 2002 / [2007(3) JCR 449 (JHR)]
- Court and date
- Jharkhand High Court (Coram: S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.), 8 March 2006
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, CISF
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as dismissed from service.
- Provisions invoked
- Not stated in the cited sources
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “the respondents have passed appropriate order, proportionate to the gravity of charges and thus called for no interference. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.” (at para 3)
- 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.
Current position
The Jharkhand High Court judgment dated 8 March 2006 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.
Evidence position
Recorded allegations
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.
Attributed to the court
What the court found
Holding not recorded separately.
“the respondents have passed appropriate order, proportionate to the gravity of charges and thus called for no interference. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.” (para 3)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
Continuing record
Follow-up history
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.