15 Mar 2019
Order issued
ConcludedThe Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: AIRONLINE 2019 SC 914
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2019-0004Pithoragarh, UttarakhandJudgment 15 March 2019
State of Uttarakhand & Ors. vs Prem Ram
Constable Prem Ram, posted at Berinag in Pithoragarh district, was found in an inebriated state on 1 November 2006 misbehaving with members of the public, with a medical examination confirming he was under the influence of alcohol. After a disciplinary enquiry proved the charge, the Superintendent of Police, Pithoragarh dismissed him on 16 May 2007, and his departmental appeal, revision and writ petition before a Single Judge all failed. A Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court, however, converted the dismissal into compulsory retirement citing 25 years of service. The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeal, holding that having regard to the seriousness of the misconduct and the fact that he was a member of the police service, there was no justification to interfere with the dismissal.
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 15 March 2019 in Civil Appeal No. 3152 of 2019, the Supreme Court of India (Coram: D.Y. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Prem Ram (Constable).
- Register number
- UK 05 CW 0001
- Case reference
- Civil Appeal No. 3152 of 2019 / AIRONLINE 2019 SC 914
- Court and date
- Supreme Court of India (Coram: D.Y. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta, JJ.), 15 March 2019
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Prem Ram (Constable)
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as compulsorily retired.
- Provisions invoked
- Not stated in the cited sources
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “Having regard to the seriousness of the charge of misconduct and the fact that the respondent was a member of the police service, we find no justification for the High Court to interfere with the order of dismissal.” (at para n/a)
- 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 Supreme Court of India judgment dated 15 March 2019 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.
“Having regard to the seriousness of the charge of misconduct and the fact that the respondent was a member of the police service, we find no justification for the High Court to interfere with the order of dismissal.” (para n/a)
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.