8 Apr 2009
Order issued
ConcludedThe Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 819/1998
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2009-0023Udaipur, RajasthanJudgment 8 April 2009
Zawar Mines Police Constable vs Union of India and Others
The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. CISF Constable was on patrol of explosives magazines 1 to 6 at Zawar Mines, Udaipur, on the night of 28-29 February 1996, after which theft of 930 non-electric detonators was reported at about 05:20 hours. The court recorded that he was charge-sheeted in May 1996 for patrol negligence and for getting relieved without handing over physical charge, found guilty after a regular inquiry, removed from service in October 1996, and his appeal was rejected in February 1997. The court held the theft must have occurred during his duty hours since seven high-security locks could not have been broken in 20 minutes, found no fault in the disciplinary or appellate orders, and dismissed the writ, leaving the removal intact. 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 →Detailed record
Report card
By judgment dated 8 April 2009 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 819/1998, the Rajasthan High Court (Coram: Govind Mathur, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Central Industrial Security Force, Unit Zawar Mines, Udaipur.
- Register number
- RJ 27 CW 0002
- Case reference
- S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 819/1998
- Court and date
- Rajasthan High Court (Coram: Govind Mathur, J.), 8 April 2009
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Central Industrial Security Force, Unit Zawar Mines, Udaipur
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as removed from service.
- Provisions invoked
- Not stated in the cited sources
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “An inference as such was rightly drawn on basis of all available evidence that the theft occured during duty hours of the petitioner and he was negligent in discharging his duties.” (at para n/a)
- 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 8 April 2009 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.
“An inference as such was rightly drawn on basis of all available evidence that the theft occured during duty hours of the petitioner and he was negligent in discharging his duties.” (para n/a)
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.