26 Apr 2012
Order issued
ConcludedThe Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: W.P.(S) No. 1800 of 2002
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2012-0030Pakur, JharkhandJudgment 26 April 2012
District Police Havildar vs State of Jharkhand and Others
The Jharkhand High Court (Narendra Nath Tiwari J.) on 26 April 2012 dismissed the writ petition of Pakur Havildar [name withheld] and upheld his discharge from service. The court recorded that he slapped Havildar twice, abused him, chased him into the office and assaulted him with a chair, fomented a caste-line disturbance and humiliated the Sergeant and Day Officer. The court held the charges were framed in plain terms, the disciplinary, appellate and revisional authorities had passed concurrent well-reasoned orders with no infirmity, and discharge was already a sympathetically reduced quantum in place of dismissal. The discharge was consequently sustained. 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 26 April 2012 in W.P.(S) No. 1800 of 2002, the Jharkhand High Court (Coram: Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Havildar, District Police Force, Pakur.
- Register number
- JH 16 CW 0001
- Case reference
- W.P.(S) No. 1800 of 2002
- Court and date
- Jharkhand High Court (Coram: Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.), 26 April 2012
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Havildar, District Police Force, Pakur
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Not stated in the cited sources
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “The appellate authority as well as the revisional authority have concurred with the said conclusion of the disciplinary authority. The orders passed by the said authorities are thoroughly discussed and well reasoned. I find no infirmity or illegality in the …” (at para 19-20)
- 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 Jharkhand High Court judgment dated 26 April 2012 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.
“The appellate authority as well as the revisional authority have concurred with the said conclusion of the disciplinary authority. The orders passed by the said authorities are thoroughly discussed and well reasoned. I find no infirmity or illegality in the …” (para 19-20)
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.