CW-2016-0026Mathura, Uttar PradeshJudgment 28 April 2016

Civil Police Constable v. State of U.P. and Others

The Allahabad High Court (Division Bench, 28 April 2016) dismissed the writ petition of dismissed Civil Police Constable of Police Station Refinery, Mathura, and sustained his dismissal dated 28 February 2000 for unauthorised absence from 30 December 1998 to 31 March 1999 while assigned summons-service duty. The Court found his winter-illness alibi and belated medical certificate unconvincing, noting a record of 13 absences totalling 578 days, 15 minor penalties, three censures and adverse entries. The Court held his callous and defiant conduct rendered him unsuitable for a disciplined force and that dismissal would set an example. The approval (15 March 2001), revision rejection (30 April 2002) and Tribunal dismissal of the claim petition (12 December 2013) were left undisturbed, with no compensation ordered. 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 April 2016 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15815 of 2014, the Allahabad High Court (Coram: Tarun Agarwala, Prabhat Chandra Tripathi, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Civil Police, U.P. Police, Police Station Refinery, Mathura.

Register number
UP 85 CW 0002
Case reference
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15815 of 2014
Court and date
Allahabad High Court (Coram: Tarun Agarwala, Prabhat Chandra Tripathi, JJ.), 28 April 2016
Officer(s) at the material time
Constable, Civil Police, U.P. Police, Police Station Refinery, Mathura
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Rule 4(1)(a)(i) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991
Finding of the Court (extract)
“This callous and defiant approach of the petitioner is totally unsuitable in the police force. Discipline and adherence to the obedience is of paramount importance in a disciplined force like Uttar Pradesh Police.” (at para 11)
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 Allahabad High Court judgment dated 28 April 2016 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.

“This callous and defiant approach of the petitioner is totally unsuitable in the police force. Discipline and adherence to the obedience is of paramount importance in a disciplined force like Uttar Pradesh Police.” (para 11)

Institutional response

1
28 Apr 2016

Order issued

Concluded
Allahabad High Court External · Binding

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

Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15815 of 2014
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.