23 Sep 2016
Order issued
ConcludedThe Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: (2017) 1 AIR Jhar R 719; (2017) 1 JBCJ 357; (2016) 4 JLJR 620
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2016-0034East Singhbhum, JharkhandJudgment 23 September 2016
Jharkhand Rail Police Constable vs State of Jharkhand
The Jharkhand High Court dismissed the writ petition of Constable challenging his dismissal for shooting dead the Officer-in-Charge of a Jamshedpur resident on 20 March 1997 after being refused leave. The court held that Departmental Proceeding No. 37/1998 had proved the charge, that Police Manual Rules 844/847 and natural justice were not breached, and that the proceeding was not held behind his back. It found neither the dismissal order of 13 April 2000 nor the appellate order of 12 October 2009 called for interference. The dismissal therefore stands; the criminal case (GRPS Case No. 32/97) proceeded separately. 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 23 September 2016 in W.P.(S) No. 107 of 2010, the Jharkhand High Court (Coram: Pramath Patnaik, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Tatanagar GRPS, Jharkhand Rail Police.
- Register number
- JH 05 CW 0007
- Case reference
- W.P.(S) No. 107 of 2010 / (2017) 1 AIR Jhar R 719; (2017) 1 JBCJ 357; (2016) 4 JLJR 620
- Court and date
- Jharkhand High Court (Coram: Pramath Patnaik, J.), 23 September 2016
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Tatanagar GRPS, Jharkhand Rail Police
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959; Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “the impugned order dated 13.04.2000 at Annexure 5 and appellate order dated 12.10.2009 at Annexure 2 do not call for interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition, sans merit is dismissed.” (at para 8)
- 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 23 September 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 impugned order dated 13.04.2000 at Annexure 5 and appellate order dated 12.10.2009 at Annexure 2 do not call for interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition, sans merit is dismissed.” (para 8)
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.