6 Dec 2013
Order issued
ConcludedThe Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: (2014) 1 JLJR 291; (2013) 12 JH CK 0019
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2013-0039Koderma, JharkhandJudgment 6 December 2013
Rail Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
delete parenthetical '(recorded as dismissal-type penalty)'. 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 6 December 2013 in LPA No. 456 of 2012 (against W.P.(S) No. 2078 of 2012), the Jharkhand High Court (Coram: R. Banumathi, Aparesh Kumar Singh, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Rail Police, Dhanbad.
- Register number
- JH 12 CW 0001
- Case reference
- LPA No. 456 of 2012 (against W.P.(S) No. 2078 of 2012) / (2014) 1 JLJR 291; (2013) 12 JH CK 0019
- Court and date
- Jharkhand High Court (Coram: R. Banumathi, Aparesh Kumar Singh, JJ.), 6 December 2013
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Rail Police, Dhanbad
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “The charges against the petitioner was found established and are so serious in nature that any employer is justified in losing confidence in such a delinquent employee.” (at para 6)
- 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 6 December 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.
“The charges against the petitioner was found established and are so serious in nature that any employer is justified in losing confidence in such a delinquent employee.” (para 6)
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.