28 Jan 2015
Order issued
ConcludedThe Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: 2015 (2) AJR 214
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2015-0018East Singhbhum, JharkhandJudgment 28 January 2015
Jharkhand Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
The Jharkhand High Court Division Bench (D. N. Patel and Pramath Patnaik JJ.) dismissed a constable's Letters Patent Appeal against the Single Judge order dated 18 April 2013 upholding his dismissal for theft. The court noted the trial court had convicted and sentenced him to two years' simple imprisonment, and held the later criminal appellate acquittal on hostile witnesses did not erase the departmentally proved charges. It further held that unpleaded, undocumented prejudice from enquiry-report handling could not vitiate the punishment. Finding no error in the Single Judge's order, the court dismissed the appeal, leaving the dismissal standing.
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 28 January 2015 in L.P.A. No. 233 of 2013, the Jharkhand High Court (Coram: D. N. Patel, Pramath Patnaik, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Patmada Police Station, Jharkhand Police.
- Register number
- JH 05 CW 0006
- Case reference
- L.P.A. No. 233 of 2013 / 2015 (2) AJR 214
- Court and date
- Jharkhand High Court (Coram: D. N. Patel, Pramath Patnaik, JJ.), 28 January 2015
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Patmada Police Station, Jharkhand Police
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 461 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “Looking to the nature of misconduct committed by this appellant, the punishment of dismissal awarded to this appellant is absolutely just, proper and adequate.” (at para 5(x))
- 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 28 January 2015 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.
“Looking to the nature of misconduct committed by this appellant, the punishment of dismissal awarded to this appellant is absolutely just, proper and adequate.” (para 5(x))
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.