4 Dec 2025
Order issued
ConcludedThe Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: (2025) 12 P&H CK 1872
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2025-0028HaryanaJudgment 4 December 2025
Haryana Police Constable vs State of Haryana and others
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed Constable's writ petition and upheld his dismissal from service for inaction on prisoner-guard duty. Part of a three-man guard holding two undertrial prisoners in safe custody, he possessed a carbine but did not fire when assailants attacked, letting them escape after killing one undertrial and seriously injuring the other; the enquiry officer found him guilty of inaction and he was dismissed on 28 July 2003, with his departmental appeal and revision also failing. The Court held the enquiry procedurally sound with unassailable factual findings in writ jurisdiction, noting also the 22-year delay since 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 4 December 2025 in Civil Writ Petition No. 13740 of 2004 (O&M), the Punjab and Haryana High Court (Coram: Jagmohan Bansal, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Haryana Police.
- Register number
- HR 00 CW 0006
- Case reference
- Civil Writ Petition No. 13740 of 2004 (O&M) / (2025) 12 P&H CK 1872
- Court and date
- Punjab and Haryana High Court (Coram: Jagmohan Bansal, J.), 4 December 2025
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Haryana Police
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as dismissed from service.
- Provisions invoked
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “The petitioner was found guilty for inaction. One prisoner was murdered and another injured who were in the safe custody of petitioner. He did not even try to open gunfire at assailants.” (at para 9)
- 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 4 December 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.
“The petitioner was found guilty for inaction. One prisoner was murdered and another injured who were in the safe custody of petitioner. He did not even try to open gunfire at assailants.” (para 9)
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.