# Bikaner Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Another

HTML version: [https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0026](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0026)

## Report card

By judgment dated 22 March 2010 in Special Appeal (Writ) arising from CWP No. 1814/1992, the Rajasthan High Court (Coram: Jagdish Bhalla, Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Bikaner district police, Rajasthan.

- Register number: RJ 07 CW 0002
- Case reference: Special Appeal (Writ) arising from CWP No. 1814/1992 / (2010) 2 WLN 465
- Court and date: Rajasthan High Court (Coram: Jagdish Bhalla, Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.), 22 March 2010
- Officer(s) at the material time: Constable, Bikaner district police, Rajasthan
- 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): “The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,500/- (five thousand and five hundred).” (at para 27)
- 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.
- Source orders: [Judgment / order (primary source)](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/213635/hanumana-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-another/); [Permanent link to this record](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0026)

**Record:** CW-2010-0026 (compiler id CWC-0899); case GAP2-54-002
**Title:** Bikaner Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Another
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; judges: Jagdish Bhalla; Dinesh Maheshwari
**Case number / citation:** Special Appeal (Writ) arising from CWP No. 1814/1992 / (2010) 2 WLN 465
**Judgment:** 2010-03-22 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bikaner, Rajasthan; police station or unit: Bikaner district police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Rajasthan CCA Rules 1958 Rule 16; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Bikaner district police, Rajasthan (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Constable was charge-sheeted under Rule 16 CCA Rules for habitual absence (earlier dismissed in 1983, reinstated in 1986; absent 40 times in about 8.5 years), inattention to duties, indisciplined conduct and blackmail of officers, and engineering a false ACB bribery trap against Inspector (Wireless) \[name withheld\] over what was a loan repayment. He did not participate in the inquiry despite opportunities; the SP Bikaner dismissed him on 12.06.1991, the DIG dismissed his appeal on 03.01.1992, and the Single Judge dismissed his writ on 29.05.1997. The Division Bench held he could not complain of ex parte proceedings, no prejudice was shown, he relied on a prima facie fabricated document, and the habitual-absenteeism finding in a disciplined service was sound. It dismissed the appeal with Rs.5,500 costs (no single incident date; misconduct spanned 1983-1991).

> The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,500/- (five thousand and five hundred).

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/213635/hanumana-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-another/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 27
**display title redacted:** Bikaner Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Another
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2010-03-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2010) 2 WLN 465', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/213635/hanumana-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-another/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Special appeal verified; dismissal of habitually absent constable upheld with Rs.5,500 costs.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2010-0026](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0026)