11 Dec 2008
Order issued
ConcludedThe Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: (2009) 3 RLW 2163
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2008-0030RajasthanJudgment 11 December 2008
Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Another
The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. Constable voluntarily remained absent without leave, and a Rule 16 inquiry proved 57 days absence in 1996 with a record of repeated voluntary absence; the disciplinary authority terminated him on 26.10.1996 as a habitual absentee. He never filed a statutory appeal or review in his lifetime and died on 30.04.1999, after which his widow [name withheld] filed the writ. The court held inquiry procedure was followed with defence representation and no natural-justice violation, the delinquent had accepted the punishment in his lifetime, the post-death writ suffered delay and laches, and interference scope on findings and quantum is very limited. It held termination not disproportionate and dismissed the writ with no order as to costs (posting district not stated in judgment).
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 11 December 2008, the Rajasthan High Court (Coram: H.R. Panwar, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Rajasthan Police Department.
- Register number
- RJ 00 CW 0002
- Case reference
- (2009) 3 RLW 2163
- Court and date
- Rajasthan High Court (Coram: H.R. Panwar, J.), 11 December 2008
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Rajasthan Police Department
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Rule 16 of the Rajasthan CCA Rules, 1958; Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “It cannot be said that the punishment imposed to the delinquent police constable is disproportionate to the delinquency.” (at para 20)
- 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 Rajasthan High Court judgment dated 11 December 2008 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.
“It cannot be said that the punishment imposed to the delinquent police constable is disproportionate to the delinquency.” (para 20)
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.