CW-2008-0007East Singhbhum, JharkhandJudgment 4 March 2008

Ratnesh Kumar Singh vs State of Jharkhand and Others

The Jharkhand High Court dismissed police constable Ratnesh Kumar Singh's writ petition and upheld his dismissal for gross station-house misconduct at Tatanagar Railway Police, where in civil dress he abused the ASI with a caste slur, tried to tear the station diary and threw the telephone set down, leading to an FIR under Sections 385/352/506/323/427 IPC and the SC/ST Act plus departmental proceedings. Though the criminal trial (S.T. No. 315 of 2004) acquitted him after witnesses turned hostile, the Court held the departmental evidence, where witnesses supported the charges, stood independently and the G.M. Tank parity did not apply. The dismissal affirmed by Memo No. 648(A) dated 20 September 2007 was sustained. 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 4 March 2008 in W.P.(S) (vs Memo No. 648(A) dated 20.09.2007), the Jharkhand High Court (Coram: Amareshwar Sahay, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Ratnesh Kumar Singh (Police Constable).

Register number
JH 05 CW 0002
Case reference
W.P.(S) (vs Memo No. 648(A) dated 20.09.2007) / (2008) 03 JH CK 0024
Court and date
Jharkhand High Court (Coram: Amareshwar Sahay, J.), 4 March 2008
Officer(s) at the material time
Ratnesh Kumar Singh (Police Constable)
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 352 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
Finding of the Court (extract)
“But in the present case, we find that the evidence in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal trial were not the same. As a matter of fact, in the criminal trial, the witnesses did not support the prosecution case …” (at para 10)
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 Jharkhand High Court judgment dated 4 March 2008 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.

“But in the present case, we find that the evidence in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal trial were not the same. As a matter of fact, in the criminal trial, the witnesses did not support the prosecution case …” (para 10)

Institutional response

1
4 Mar 2008

Order issued

Concluded
Jharkhand High Court External · Binding

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

Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: (2008) 03 JH CK 0024
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.