12 Jun 2024
Order issued
ConcludedThe Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: L.P.A. No. 385 of 2023
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2024-0038Bhagalpur, BiharJudgment 12 June 2024
Bhagalpur Police Inspector vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
The appellant, Inspector-in-Charge of Kotwali police station at the time, was convicted of criminal contempt with eight other policemen for the November 1997 Bhagalpur court-premises disruption, a conviction affirmed by the Supreme Court, and was dismissed from service by Jharkhand in 2004 after bifurcation. His departmental appeal failed and the Single Judge dismissed his writ; he sought parity with co-delinquents whose dismissals had been reduced. The Division Bench held that a public servant whose criminal conviction stands to the final forum cannot be retained under Article 311(2)(a), that parity cannot be claimed from illegal relief given to others, and dismissed the appeal, sustaining the dismissal.
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 12 June 2024 in L.P.A. No. 385 of 2023, the Jharkhand High Court (Coram: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Inspector, Kotwali Police Station, Bhagalpur.
- Register number
- BR 10 CW 0012
- Case reference
- L.P.A. No. 385 of 2023
- Court and date
- Jharkhand High Court (Coram: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJ.), 12 June 2024
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Inspector, Kotwali Police Station, Bhagalpur
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as dismissed from service.
- Provisions invoked
- Article 311(2)(a) of the Constitution of India
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “This Court, considering the fact that once the public servant has been convicted and the said conviction order has sustained upto the final adjudicatory forum, i.e., the Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, is of the view that such public servant cannot …” (at para 53)
- 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 12 June 2024 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.
“This Court, considering the fact that once the public servant has been convicted and the said conviction order has sustained upto the final adjudicatory forum, i.e., the Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, is of the view that such public servant cannot …” (para 53)
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.