CW-2012-0033Palamu, JharkhandJudgment 28 August 2012

Daltonganj Railway Police Constable vs State of Jharkhand and Others

The judgment of the Jharkhand High Court records the following account. Railway policeman, on duty with Daltonganj Railway Police on 5 February 2004, allegedly abused Inspector while drunk, then fired a round from Government Rifle No. 1309438 before colleagues overpowered him; medical examination found him drunk and ballistic opinion matched the cartridge to his rifle. He was dismissed in April 2006 and his appeal rejected, though a criminal court acquitted him under the Arms Act as no witness appeared. The Jharkhand High Court found the departmental charges of unauthorised firing and on-duty drunkenness proved on ballistic and medical evidence, distinguishing them from the criminal charge. The Court held acquittal alone was no ground to set aside the dismissal and dismissed the writ petition in limine. 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 →

Report card

By judgment dated 28 August 2012 in W.P.(S) No. 417 of 2011, the Jharkhand High Court (Coram: Alok Singh, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Daltonganj Railway Police.

Register number
JH 03 CW 0003
Case reference
W.P.(S) No. 417 of 2011
Court and date
Jharkhand High Court (Coram: Alok Singh, J.), 28 August 2012
Officer(s) at the material time
Constable, Daltonganj Railway Police
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959
Finding of the Court (extract)
“Charge of firing from the Government rifle stands proved in view of the Ballistic report. Charge regarding consuming liquor while on duty is also proved by the medical report. Therefore, simply because the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal …” (at para n/a)
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.

The Jharkhand High Court judgment dated 28 August 2012 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.

Recorded allegations

1
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.

What the court found

Holding not recorded separately.

“Charge of firing from the Government rifle stands proved in view of the Ballistic report. Charge regarding consuming liquor while on duty is also proved by the medical report. Therefore, simply because the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal …” (para n/a)

Institutional response

1
28 Aug 2012

Order issued

Concluded
Jharkhand High Court External · Binding

The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.

Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: W.P.(S) No. 417 of 2011
Not yet re-checked.

Follow-up history

1
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.

Keep exploring

These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.