22 Apr 2013
Order issued
ConcludedThe Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2287/2013
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2013-0006RajasthanJudgment 22 April 2013
Rajasthan Police Sub-Inspector vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.
The Jodhpur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the writ petition of Sub-Inspector, upholding his dismissal under Rule 19(i) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958, imposed on the ground of his trial-court conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner contended that his criminal appeal was pending and sentence suspended, so the conviction had not attained finality. The Court held that a trial-court conviction remains final until altered in appeal and that suspension of sentence does not suspend the conviction, so the disciplinary authority was competent to dismiss him for the conduct leading to the conviction. The two-page order states neither his posting nor the underlying bribe facts. 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 April 2013 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2287/2013, the Rajasthan High Court (Coram: Govind Mathur, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Sub-Inspector.
- Register number
- RJ 00 CW 0006
- Case reference
- S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2287/2013
- Court and date
- Rajasthan High Court (Coram: Govind Mathur, J.), 22 April 2013
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Sub-Inspector
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “In the present case admittedly the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as such, it is only his conduct that led to his dismissal.” (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.
Current position
The Rajasthan High Court judgment dated 22 April 2013 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.
“In the present case admittedly the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as such, it is only his conduct that led to his dismissal.” (para n/a)
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.