29 Oct 2020
Order issued
ConcludedThe Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: AIRONLINE 2020 SC 795
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2020-0008Rajsamand, RajasthanJudgment 29 October 2020
State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs Heem Singh
The Supreme Court set aside a Rajasthan High Court Division Bench order that had directed reinstatement of Constable Heem Singh, who was dismissed from service after a departmental inquiry found him complicit in a conspiracy to murder a Khamnaur man in August 2002. Although Heem Singh had been acquitted in the criminal trial due to witnesses turning hostile, the Supreme Court ruled that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically vitiate disciplinary findings governed by the standard of preponderance of probabilities. Observing that retaining an officer found culpable of serious misconduct would undermine public confidence in the police, the Court restored the disciplinary penalty of dismissal, granting only notional minimum qualifying service under Article 142 to facilitate retiral dues without back wages. 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 29 October 2020 in Civil Appeal No. 3340 of 2020, the Supreme Court of India (Coram: D.Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra, Indira Banerjee, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Heem Singh (Constable).
- Register number
- RJ 30 CW 0002
- Case reference
- Civil Appeal No. 3340 of 2020 / AIRONLINE 2020 SC 795
- Court and date
- Supreme Court of India (Coram: D.Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra, Indira Banerjee, JJ.), 29 October 2020
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Heem Singh (Constable)
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as dismissed from service.
- Provisions invoked
- Article 142 of the Constitution of India; Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “True, even on the more relaxed standard which governs a disciplinary enquiry, evidence of the involvement of the respondent in a conspiracy involving the death of a Khamnaur man would be difficult to prove. But there are, as we have …” (at para 35)
- 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 29 October 2020 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.
“True, even on the more relaxed standard which governs a disciplinary enquiry, evidence of the involvement of the respondent in a conspiracy involving the death of a Khamnaur man would be difficult to prove. But there are, as we have …” (para 35)
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.