7 Apr 2010
Order issued
ConcludedThe Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: LPA No. 458 of 2010 (O&M)
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2010-0003Rewari, HaryanaJudgment 7 April 2010
ASI Rajender Parshad vs State of Haryana and Others
A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed LPA 458 of 2010 and upheld the dismissal of ASI Rajender Parshad for receiving illegal gratification. The Court noted he was suspended in May 2007 and booked under the Prevention of Corruption Act at PS Khol, Rewari, and though the criminal court acquitted him on 13 May 2008, a departmental enquiry returned a verdict of guilt leading to dismissal on 30 August 2008. The Single Judge had dismissed his writ holding departmental proof differs from criminal proof. The Division Bench agreed the dismissal rested on enquiry evidence rather than criminal-court evidence and found no ground to interfere. 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 7 April 2010 in LPA No. 458 of 2010 (O&M), the Punjab and Haryana High Court (Coram: Adarsh Kumar Goel, Alok Singh, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Rajender Parshad (Assistant Sub-Inspector).
- Register number
- HR 36 CW 0001
- Case reference
- LPA No. 458 of 2010 (O&M)
- Court and date
- Punjab and Haryana High Court (Coram: Adarsh Kumar Goel, Alok Singh, JJ.), 7 April 2010
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Rajender Parshad (Assistant Sub-Inspector)
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “In the present case, the action has not been taken on the same evidence which was led before the criminal court but on the basis of evidence which was led in the departmental enquiry.” (at para 6)
- 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 Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment dated 7 April 2010 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.
“In the present case, the action has not been taken on the same evidence which was led before the criminal court but on the basis of evidence which was led in the departmental enquiry.” (para 6)
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.