24 Feb 1992
Order issued
ConcludedThe Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: (1993) 103 PLR 317
Not yet re-checked.
CW-1992-0011Firozpur, PunjabJudgment 24 February 1992
State of Punjab vs Ferozepur Police Constable
The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the State's second appeal and restored the dismissal of constable for wilfully absenting himself from Police Lines, Ferozepur for 37 days in 1983. The court held the proven absence was the gravest act of misconduct under Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, that Rule 14.11-A was only an enabling alternative, and that the authorities had passed speaking orders considering his incorrigible record of thirteen prior absence punishments. The first appellate court's decree was set aside and the trial court's dismissal of his suit restored. 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 24 February 1992, the Punjab and Haryana High Court (Coram: G. R. Majithia, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Police Lines, Ferozepur.
- Register number
- PB 05 CW 0002
- Case reference
- (1993) 103 PLR 317
- Court and date
- Punjab and Haryana High Court (Coram: G. R. Majithia, J.), 24 February 1992
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Police Lines, Ferozepur
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934; Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934; Rule 14.11-A of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “He wilfully remained absent from duty for thirty seven days. It will be misnomer to say that the conduct of the plaintiff will not constitute the gravest act of misconduct in terms of Rule 16.2 (1) of the Rules” (at para 8)
- 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 Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment dated 24 February 1992 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.
“He wilfully remained absent from duty for thirty seven days. It will be misnomer to say that the conduct of the plaintiff will not constitute the gravest act of misconduct in terms of Rule 16.2 (1) of the Rules” (para 8)
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.