23 Jul 2024
Order issued
ConcludedThe Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: 2024 INSC 550; [2024] 7 S.C.R. 910
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2024-0041Mainpuri, Uttar PradeshJudgment 23 July 2024
Union of India & Ors. v. CRPF Constable (General Duty)
The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. [name withheld] was appointed CRPF Constable (GD) on 17 November 2011 and denied any arrest or pending case in his verification roll, though FIR No. 76 of 2011 at Barnhal, Mainpuri, and two criminal cases were pending against him. The inquiry also found he filed fake SHO reports during verification, and he was terminated on 24 June 2014 (upheld 23 September 2014). The Supreme Court held suppression proved beyond doubt, including concealment of judicial custody and bail, and applied a stringent yardstick for law-enforcement appointments. It allowed the Union's appeal, set aside the Gauhati High Court's reinstatement orders, and restored termination.
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 23 July 2024 in Civil Appeal No. 7933 of 2024 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 25631 of 2019), the Supreme Court of India (Coram: Hima Kohli, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable (General Duty), 149 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF).
- Register number
- UP 84 CW 0001
- Case reference
- Civil Appeal No. 7933 of 2024 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 25631 of 2019) / 2024 INSC 550; [2024] 7 S.C.R. 910
- Court and date
- Supreme Court of India (Coram: Hima Kohli, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.), 23 July 2024
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable (General Duty), 149 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF)
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Not stated in the cited sources
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “Full sentence: 'The respondent does not deserve any latitude as it has been established beyond doubt that he was all along aware of the FIR registered against him with Barnhal Police Station, Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh and the ensuing criminal cases.' …” (at para 26)
- 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 23 July 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.
“Full sentence: 'The respondent does not deserve any latitude as it has been established beyond doubt that he was all along aware of the FIR registered against him with Barnhal Police Station, Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh and the ensuing criminal cases.' …” (para 26)
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.