8 Jan 2021
Order issued
ConcludedThe Gujarat High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: R/Special Civil Application No. 11044 of 2006
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2021-0012Navsari, GujaratJudgment 8 January 2021
Navsari District Police Armed Police Constable vs State of Gujarat
The judgment of the Gujarat High Court records the following account. Armed Police Constable of Navsari was removed from service on 18 April 2001 for contracting a second marriage with Kanizaben on 13 January 1994 while his first spouse lived, without divorce or State permission, and for falsely denying the second marriage before the Deputy Superintendent of Police on 6 January 1998. The inquiry officer held both charges proved on witness and documentary evidence including the petitioner's own admission of the registered marriage. His appeal and revision failed, and he challenged the removal under Article 226. The Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact and held removal not shockingly disproportionate, rejecting the petition. 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 8 January 2021 in R/Special Civil Application No. 11044 of 2006, the Gujarat High Court (Coram: Umesh A. Trivedi, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Armed Police Constable, Navsari District Police.
- Register number
- GJ 21 CW 0001
- Case reference
- R/Special Civil Application No. 11044 of 2006
- Court and date
- Gujarat High Court (Coram: Umesh A. Trivedi, J.), 8 January 2021
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Armed Police Constable, Navsari District Police
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as removed from service.
- Provisions invoked
- Rule 26 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “I see no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the authorities, as aforesaid which requires no interference by this Court as even a punishment of removal has also not shockingly disproportionate” (at para 16)
- 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 Gujarat High Court judgment dated 8 January 2021 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.
“I see no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the authorities, as aforesaid which requires no interference by this Court as even a punishment of removal has also not shockingly disproportionate” (para 16)
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.