26 Sep 2018
Order issued
ConcludedThe Uttarakhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: (2018) 09 UK CK 0099
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2018-0014Dehradun, UttarakhandJudgment 26 September 2018
Bhagat Ram vs U.P. Public Services Tribunal and Others
The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed the writ petition of Constable Bhagat Ram of the Dehradun Civil Police, affirming the Tribunal and upholding his dismissal for unauthorised absence beginning 12 May 1989. The Court noted he ignored suspension and a charge-sheet served at his home, never participated in the inquiry, and stood dismissed by the SP Dehradun in December 1990 with the DIG appeal failing in 1992 and the Tribunal claim in 1995. It held the inquiry finding was evidence-based, the absence till dismissal stood proved, and no interference was warranted with a disciplined force decision. Scope note: a purely internal disciplinary matter with no citizen victim. 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 26 September 2018 in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 24 of 2001 (Old No. 38017 of 2000), the Uttarakhand High Court (Coram: Rajiv Sharma, Manoj Kumar Tiwari, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Bhagat Ram (Constable).
- Register number
- UK 07 CW 0005
- Case reference
- Writ Petition (S/B) No. 24 of 2001 (Old No. 38017 of 2000) / (2018) 09 UK CK 0099
- Court and date
- Uttarakhand High Court (Coram: Rajiv Sharma, Manoj Kumar Tiwari, JJ.), 26 September 2018
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Bhagat Ram (Constable)
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Not stated in the cited sources
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “Petitioner is a member of disciplined force. As member of disciplined force, petitioner was expected to follow the rules and orders of his superior officers. Petitioner was required to report back for duties on 12.05.1989, but he did not resume …” (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.
Current position
The Uttarakhand High Court judgment dated 26 September 2018 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.
“Petitioner is a member of disciplined force. As member of disciplined force, petitioner was expected to follow the rules and orders of his superior officers. Petitioner was required to report back for duties on 12.05.1989, but he did not resume …” (para 11)
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.