1 May 2019
Order issued
ConcludedThe Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: W.P.(S) No. 5368 of 2018
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2019-0031Ranchi, JharkhandJudgment 1 May 2019
Jharkhand Police Constable (probationer, No. 2029) v. State of Jharkhand and Others
The judgment of the Jharkhand High Court records the following account. Probationer-constable [name withheld] (No. 2029), appointed in Ranchi in 1999, was removed from service on 18.10.2005 under Rule 668 of the Jharkhand Police Manual after being chargesheeted as an absconder in Nawada Muffasil P.S. Case No. 40 of 1999 under Section 302/34 IPC read with Section 27, Arms Act. He sought reinstatement following his acquittal in the criminal case in 2011. The Court held a probationer could be removed without notice, that a benefit-of-doubt acquittal is not an honourable acquittal conferring any right to reinstatement, and that the 13-year delay barred relief. The writ petition was dismissed. 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 1 May 2019 in W.P.(S) No. 5368 of 2018, the Jharkhand High Court (Coram: Ananda Sen, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable (probationer, No. 2029), Jharkhand Police, Ranchi.
- Register number
- JH 01 CW 0012
- Case reference
- W.P.(S) No. 5368 of 2018
- Court and date
- Jharkhand High Court (Coram: Ananda Sen, J.), 1 May 2019
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable (probationer, No. 2029), Jharkhand Police, Ranchi
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as removed from service.
- Provisions invoked
- Rule 668 of the Jharkhand Police Manual
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “The facts are admitted that he was an accused, an absconder and was facing trial under Section 302 and was taken into custody.” (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 Jharkhand High Court judgment dated 1 May 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 facts are admitted that he was an accused, an absconder and was facing trial under Section 302 and was taken into custody.” (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.