6 Apr 2016
Order issued
ConcludedThe Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: (2016) 2 BBCJ 465; (2016) 3 PLJR 108
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2016-0022Munger, BiharJudgment 6 April 2016
Bihar Military Police Constable vs State of Bihar
The Patna High Court Division Bench dismissed the letters patent appeal of BMP Constable against his dismissal dated 22 November 2006 for 340 days of unauthorised absence. The court held that adequate opportunity had been afforded at every stage, with notices served through his father, post and special messenger, and that he had evaded participation and refused cross-examination. It found no procedural irregularity in the enquiry and declined to interfere with the penalty. The dismissal, already affirmed in departmental appeal and writ, therefore stands.
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 April 2016 in L.P.A. No. 99 of 2014, the Patna High Court (Coram: Hemant Gupta, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Bihar Military Police-X, Jamalpur.
- Register number
- BR 08 CW 0001
- Case reference
- L.P.A. No. 99 of 2014 / (2016) 2 BBCJ 465; (2016) 3 PLJR 108
- Court and date
- Patna High Court (Coram: Hemant Gupta, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.), 6 April 2016
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Bihar Military Police-X, Jamalpur
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Not stated in the cited sources
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “There is no procedural irregularity in the conduct of the proceedings. Since there is no procedural irregularity or illegality, we do not find any error in the order of the disciplinary authority which may warrant any interference in the present …” (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 Patna High Court judgment dated 6 April 2016 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.
“There is no procedural irregularity in the conduct of the proceedings. Since there is no procedural irregularity or illegality, we do not find any error in the order of the disciplinary authority which may warrant any interference in the present …” (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.