19 Feb 2025
Order issued
ConcludedThe Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 93
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2025-0036Dausa, RajasthanJudgment 19 February 2025
Central Reserve Police Constable No. 850856896 v. Union of India and Others
The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. CRPF Constable, resident of Salve Kala via Bandikui in Dausa, took 15 days sanctioned leave from 4 October 1999, overstayed about 65 days without intimation while false information of his death was sent to the authorities, and rejoined on 27 December 1999. The court recorded dismissal from service on 28 August 2000 after departmental inquiry and rejection of his appeal on 27 December 2000, challenged by a 2001 writ. The court held wilful unauthorised absence by a member of a disciplined force is the gravest misconduct, distinguished the cited precedents on facts, and dismissed the writ, leaving the dismissal intact. 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 19 February 2025 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4181/2001, the Rajasthan High Court (Coram: Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable No. 850856896, B/19 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Barpeta Road, Assam.
- Register number
- RJ 29 CW 0001
- Case reference
- S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4181/2001 / 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 93
- Court and date
- Rajasthan High Court (Coram: Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.), 19 February 2025
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable No. 850856896, B/19 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Barpeta Road, Assam
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as dismissed from service.
- Provisions invoked
- Not stated in the cited sources
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “Looking to the fact that the petitioner remained willfully absent from duty on unauthorized leaves without sending any intimation to the respondents authorities and looking to the fact that an incorrect information was sent at his instance that he has …” (at para 23)
- 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 19 February 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.
“Looking to the fact that the petitioner remained willfully absent from duty on unauthorized leaves without sending any intimation to the respondents authorities and looking to the fact that an incorrect information was sent at his instance that he has …” (para 23)
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.