28 Aug 1964
Order issued
ConcludedThe Gujarat High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: AIR 1965 Guj 283
Not yet re-checked.
CW-1964-0003Ahmedabad, GujaratJudgment 28 August 1964
Ahmedabad Police Police Constable vs State of Gujarat & Ors.
The judgment of the Gujarat High Court records the following account. Police Constable, aggrieved over medical-leave and reimbursement claims after kidney operations in 1959, carried on propaganda in the force and squatted in a day-long hunger strike at the Sachivalaya entrance to pressure the authorities. A departmental inquiry found gross breach of discipline and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad removed him from service. The Gujarat High Court rejected his Article 311(1) and Bombay Police Act challenges, held adequacy of punishment was for the deciding authority with no breach of natural justice, and dismissed his writ petition, sustaining the removal. 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 28 August 1964 in Special Civil Application No. 522 of 1961, the Gujarat High Court (Coram: N. M. Miabhoy, N. K. Vakil, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Police Constable, Ahmedabad city police.
- Register number
- GJ 01 CW 0001
- Case reference
- Special Civil Application No. 522 of 1961 / AIR 1965 Guj 283
- Court and date
- Gujarat High Court (Coram: N. M. Miabhoy, N. K. Vakil, JJ.), 28 August 1964
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Police Constable, Ahmedabad city police
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 10 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951; Section 25(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951; Section 25(2) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951; Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India; Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “It cannot be said that the deciding authority had committed any breach of principles of natural justice when it decided that this was such a breach of discipline as would necessitate the punishment of removal, nor do we think that …” (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 Gujarat High Court judgment dated 28 August 1964 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.
“It cannot be said that the deciding authority had committed any breach of principles of natural justice when it decided that this was such a breach of discipline as would necessitate the punishment of removal, nor do we think that …” (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.