22 Jul 2010
Order issued
ConcludedThe Gujarat High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: Special Civil Application No. 8325 of 2010
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2010-0031Kheda, GujaratJudgment 22 July 2010
Unarmed Police Unarmed Police Constable vs State of Gujarat & 3
Unarmed Constable was found drunk on a public road near Pathikashram, Nadiad, at about 2:30 am on 26 May 1995 and prosecuted under the Bombay Prohibition Act and Bombay Police Act. The criminal court acquitted him on benefit of doubt, but departmental proceedings held the misconduct proved and he was dismissed, with the appeal and revision both failing in 2006. After his death in 2007, his widow challenged the dismissal. The Gujarat High Court held that a criminal acquittal does not dislodge a departmental finding recorded on preponderance of probability, and dismissed the petition. 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 22 July 2010 in Special Civil Application No. 8325 of 2010, the Gujarat High Court (Coram: A.L. Dave, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Unarmed Police Constable.
- Register number
- GJ 07 CW 0004
- Case reference
- Special Civil Application No. 8325 of 2010
- Court and date
- Gujarat High Court (Coram: A.L. Dave, J.), 22 July 2010
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Unarmed Police Constable
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Not stated in the cited sources
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “It is now a settled proposition of law that acquittal in a criminal proceedings may not have consequential effect on departmental proceedings, since both the proceedings are decided on different principles of proof. In criminal proceedings, strict proof beyond reasonable …” (at para 4)
- 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 Gujarat High Court judgment dated 22 July 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.
“It is now a settled proposition of law that acquittal in a criminal proceedings may not have consequential effect on departmental proceedings, since both the proceedings are decided on different principles of proof. In criminal proceedings, strict proof beyond reasonable …” (para 4)
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.