23 Jun 2016
Order issued
ConcludedThe Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: Letters Patent Appeal No. 906 of 2014
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2016-0030Bongaigaon, AssamJudgment 23 June 2016
CRPF Constable vs The Union of India and Others
The judgment of the Patna High Court records the following account. [name withheld], a CRPF constable of F/116 Battalion at Dhaligaon, Assam, challenged his June 2006 dismissal for deserting camp twice for 14 and 84 days while undergoing a confinement punishment. The court found he had initially participated in the enquiry and then deliberately absented himself despite notices sent to his home address, so the ex parte conclusion of proceedings was proper. The court found no infirmity in the Single Bench order dismissing his writ petition. The appeal was dismissed and the dismissal 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 23 June 2016 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 906 of 2014, the Patna High Court (Coram: I. A. Ansari, Chakradhari Sharan Singh, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, F/116 Battalion, CRPF.
- Register number
- AS 19 CW 0001
- Case reference
- Letters Patent Appeal No. 906 of 2014
- Court and date
- Patna High Court (Coram: I. A. Ansari, Chakradhari Sharan Singh, JJ.), 23 June 2016
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, F/116 Battalion, CRPF
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “The punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charge framed against the appellant which came to be proved in a departmental enquiry.” (at para 17)
- 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 23 June 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.
“The punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charge framed against the appellant which came to be proved in a departmental enquiry.” (para 17)
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.