26 Apr 2017
Order issued
ConcludedThe Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: C.W.J.C. No. 18705 of 2008
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2017-0021West Tripura, TripuraJudgment 26 April 2017
CRPF Constable vs The Union of India and Others
The Patna High Court (Prabhat Kumar Jha J.) on 26 April 2017 dismissed the writ petition of CRPF Constable and upheld his dismissal from service. The court recorded that while posted at Agartala he reported intoxicated for medical examination on 1 November 1999, disobeyed orderly duty, absented from barracks without permission and abused Deputy Commandant M.K. Sinha. The court held dismissal under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act read with Rule 27 was competent without a Sections 9/10 prosecution, following the Supreme Court in Ghulam Mohd. Bhat, and that the enquiry suffered no procedural illegality. Later proceedings: on 25 February 2023, the Patna High Court set aside the order recorded in this judgment (concerning [name withheld]); the outcome recorded here therefore does not stand. The dismissal, already affirmed in appeal, was consequently sustained.
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 26 April 2017 in C.W.J.C. No. 18705 of 2008, the Patna High Court (Coram: Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, B/11 Battalion, CRPF.
- Register number
- TR 01 CW 0002
- Case reference
- C.W.J.C. No. 18705 of 2008
- Court and date
- Patna High Court (Coram: Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.), 26 April 2017
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, B/11 Battalion, CRPF
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as dismissed from service.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949; Rule 27(a) of the CRPF Rules, 1955
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “Therefore, I find that on account of non-appointment of presenting officer, although there is no rule for appointing presenting officer, no prejudice was caused to the petitioner and the dismissal of the petitioner does not suffer from any illegality.” (at para 17)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Disciplinary action upheld. Sentence: dismissal.
- Present status of the proceedings
- Patna High Court, 25 February 2023: conviction set aside.
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 26 April 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 on account of non-appointment of presenting officer, although there is no rule for appointing presenting officer, no prejudice was caused to the petitioner and the dismissal of the petitioner does not suffer from any illegality.” (para 17)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
25 Feb 2023
Order set aside
ConcludedLater proceedings: on 25 February 2023, the Patna High Court set aside the order recorded in this judgment (concerning [name withheld]); the outcome recorded here therefore does not stand.
Later proceeding · Conviction not standing.
Source: Indiankanoon Org
Not yet re-checked.
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.