20 May 2025
Order issued
ConcludedThe Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 668
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2025-0006Uttarkashi, UttarakhandJudgment 20 May 2025
Union of India & Anr. vs Indo-Tibetan Border Police Constable (General Duty)
The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. Constable of the ITBP, recruited in 1990, was on sentry duty at the Kote on the night of 4/5 July 2005 guarding company cash boxes containing lakhs of rupees meant for disbursement to personnel. He broke open the Kote lock, took the cash, concealed the cash box about 200 yards away and fled the post, later confessing upon arrest. A Court of Inquiry and Summary Force Court found him guilty on all five charges and dismissed him on 14 November 2005, but a Single Judge and then a Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court directed reconsideration of the punishment as disproportionate. The Supreme Court allowed the Union's appeal, holding the robbery involved moral turpitude warranting zero tolerance in a paramilitary force, and restored 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 20 May 2025 in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 18628 of 2019, the Supreme Court of India (Coram: Surya Kant, N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable (General Duty), Indo-Tibetan Border Police.
- Register number
- UK 10 CW 0001
- Case reference
- Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 18628 of 2019 / 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 668
- Court and date
- Supreme Court of India (Coram: Surya Kant, N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ.), 20 May 2025
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable (General Duty), Indo-Tibetan Border Police
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Not stated in the cited sources
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “All members of the force must note that there is zero tolerance for such brazen misconduct, where the guardian of the cash box became its looter.” (at para 11)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Disciplinary action upheld. Sentence: dismissal.
- Present status of the proceedings
- The judgment is recent and may be subject to appeal; the pendency of an appeal is not a finding.
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
Current position
Judgment dated 20 May 2025. This judgment may still be subject to appeal; initiation or pendency of an appeal is not a finding.
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.
“All members of the force must note that there is zero tolerance for such brazen misconduct, where the guardian of the cash box became its looter.” (para 11)
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.