2 Sep 2022
Order issued
ConcludedThe Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 735
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2022-0018Dholpur, RajasthanJudgment 2 September 2022
The State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs Phool Singh
The Supreme Court set aside judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) that had quashed the disciplinary dismissal of Constable Phool Singh of Mania Police Station, Dholpur. On 15 October 1987, while off-duty but dressed in uniform, Phool Singh accosted motorcyclist Mahesh Kumar, demanded Rs. 100, seized his vehicle upon non-payment, and waved an illegal firearm at a gathering crowd before discharging it. Although an appellate court later acquitted him under Section 392 IPC and Section 3/25 Arms Act on the ground of benefit of doubt, the Supreme Court ruled that a benefit-of-doubt acquittal is not an honourable acquittal and cannot invalidate departmental proceedings, thereby confirming his dismissal. 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 2 September 2022 in Civil Appeal No. 5930 of 2022, the Supreme Court of India (Coram: S. Ravindra Bhat, Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Phool Singh (Constable).
- Register number
- RJ 11 CW 0001
- Case reference
- Civil Appeal No. 5930 of 2022 / 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 735
- Court and date
- Supreme Court of India (Coram: S. Ravindra Bhat, Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.), 2 September 2022
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Phool Singh (Constable)
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959; Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “Therefore, in the present case the acquittal of the respondent is not an honourable acquittal, but an acquittal given due to a “benefit of doubt”. Under these circumstances and in view of the position of law as stated above, this …” (at para 14)
- 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 2 September 2022 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.
“Therefore, in the present case the acquittal of the respondent is not an honourable acquittal, but an acquittal given due to a “benefit of doubt”. Under these circumstances and in view of the position of law as stated above, this …” (para 14)
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.