28 Jan 2017
Order issued
ConcludedThe Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15626 of 2008
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2017-0015Gaya, BiharJudgment 28 January 2017
Bihar Military Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Others
The judgment of the Patna High Court records the following account. [name withheld], a constable in Bihar Military Police-18 at Bodh Gaya, took four days leave from 07.05.2000, ignored recall notices dated 24.06.2000 and 12.09.2000, and rejoined only on 16.04.2001 with a sciatica certificate. The Commandant dismissed him on 04.01.2002 after enquiry; his appeal (DIG, 04.03.2003) and memorial (DG, 05.08.2004) were rejected. After his death, his widow [name withheld] challenged the dismissal under Article 226. The Court examined the service record, finding fifteen willful absences totalling 931 days overstay and six desertions in 14 years, and held the habitual-absence punishment required no interference. The writ petition was dismissed and the dismissal from service stands. 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 28 January 2017 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15626 of 2008, the Patna High Court (Coram: Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Bihar Military Police-18, Bodh Gaya.
- Register number
- BR 02 CW 0005
- Case reference
- Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15626 of 2008
- Court and date
- Patna High Court (Coram: Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.), 28 January 2017
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Bihar Military Police-18, Bodh Gaya
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as dismissed from service.
- Provisions invoked
- Not stated in the cited sources
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “Therefore, I find that the order of punishment inflicted on the husband of the petitioner does not require any interference and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.” (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 28 January 2017 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.
“Therefore, I find that the order of punishment inflicted on the husband of the petitioner does not require any interference and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.” (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.