3 May 2023
Order issued
ConcludedThe Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: 2023/RJJP/007400
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2023-0014Tonk, RajasthanJudgment 3 May 2023
Bahadur Singh vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.
The Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the legal heirs of deceased Constable Bahadur Singh of Sadar Police Station, Tonk, upholding his compulsory retirement for serious misconduct. On 18 January 2002, while unauthorizedly absent from duty, Bahadur Singh and four accomplices abducted a Todaraisingh man, assaulted him, and forcibly obtained his signatures on stamp paper, leading to registration of FIR No. 14/2002 under Sections 365, 342, 327, 323, and 120-B IPC and subsequent departmental inquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules. Rejecting the claim that his later acquittal by a criminal court vitiated departmental action, the High Court held that the inquiry findings were based on credible evidence and the penalty of compulsory retirement was commensurate with the misconduct. 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 3 May 2023 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13411/2011, the Rajasthan High Court (Coram: Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Bahadur Singh (Constable).
- Register number
- RJ 26 CW 0002
- Case reference
- S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13411/2011 / 2023/RJJP/007400
- Court and date
- Rajasthan High Court (Coram: Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.), 3 May 2023
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Bahadur Singh (Constable)
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as compulsorily retired.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 327 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “The department has led credible evidence to show that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct. The findings of the Inquiry Officer are neither perverse nor based on 'no evidence'.” (at para 20)
- 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 Rajasthan High Court judgment dated 3 May 2023 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 department has led credible evidence to show that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct. The findings of the Inquiry Officer are neither perverse nor based on 'no evidence'.” (para 20)
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.