16 Apr 2019
Order issued
ConcludedThe Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: 2019 (2) PLJR 908
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2019-0027Bhojpur, BiharJudgment 16 April 2019
Bihar Police Constable v. State of Bihar and Others
Constable, appointed in Kaimur in 1999 and transferred to Bhojpur in 2004, absented himself from duty from March 2004 to March 2005 and was dismissed on 13.10.2007 after a departmental inquiry. His appeal, memorial and writ petition (CWJC No. 12182 of 2012, dismissed 06.09.2018 by Nilu Agrawal J.) all failed. The Division Bench held the inquiry finding of unauthorised absence was supported by evidence, the ailment defence was unproved, and the penalty was not disproportionate for a member of a disciplined force. The Court found no perversity or procedural error and rejected the Letters Patent Appeal.
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 16 April 2019 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1485 of 2018 (in CWJC No. 12182 of 2012), the Patna High Court (Coram: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Anjana Mishra, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Bihar Police, Bhojpur.
- Register number
- BR 03 CW 0003
- Case reference
- Letters Patent Appeal No. 1485 of 2018 (in CWJC No. 12182 of 2012) / 2019 (2) PLJR 908
- Court and date
- Patna High Court (Coram: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Anjana Mishra, JJ.), 16 April 2019
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Bihar Police, Bhojpur
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Not stated in the cited sources
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “The appellant having not chosen to join his duties on his own volition, therefore, did not deserve to be a member of the disciplined Force.” (at para 9)
- 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 16 April 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.
“The appellant having not chosen to join his duties on his own volition, therefore, did not deserve to be a member of the disciplined Force.” (para 9)
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.