18 May 2010
Order issued
ConcludedThe Uttarakhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: (2010) 05 UK CK 0018
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2010-0004Pauri Garhwal, UttarakhandJudgment 18 May 2010
State of Uttaranchal and Others vs Pauri Police Constable and Another
Replace closing boilerplate to note respondent No.2's recorded case (heel pain, no medical evidence; condonation plea, rejected at paras 5-6). 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 18 May 2010, the Uttarakhand High Court (Coram: J. S. Khehar, Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Police Lines, Pauri.
- Register number
- UK 12 CW 0001
- Case reference
- (2010) 05 UK CK 0018
- Court and date
- Uttarakhand High Court (Coram: J. S. Khehar, Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.), 18 May 2010
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Police Lines, Pauri
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Not stated in the cited sources
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “Ample opportunity was given to respondent No. 2 in the disciplinary proceedings where he failed to establish his case or to justify his continued unauthorised absence for a period of 205 days. The police is a disciplined force and in …” (at para 5)
- 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 Uttarakhand High Court judgment dated 18 May 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.
“Ample opportunity was given to respondent No. 2 in the disciplinary proceedings where he failed to establish his case or to justify his continued unauthorised absence for a period of 205 days. The police is a disciplined force and in …” (para 5)
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.