14 Jan 1994
Order issued
ConcludedThe Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: (1994) 01 P&H CK 0128
Not yet re-checked.
CW-1994-0006Amritsar, PunjabJudgment 14 January 1994
Punjab Police Ex-Constable vs State of Punjab and Another
The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court records the following account. Constable was posted on armed sentry duty (10 p.m. to 2 a.m.) at the residence of the SSP Amritsar on the night of 19-20 January 1983, but slept in the garage, and his service rifle was stolen (FIR No. 50 under Section 380 IPC). After a regular enquiry he was dismissed from service, affirmed on departmental appeal and revision, and his civil suit was dismissed by both lower courts. In regular second appeal he argued only that dismissal was disproportionate since the rifle was later recovered at his instance. The High Court held that abandoning armed sentry duty and allowing the rifle to be stolen was the gravest misconduct rendering him completely unfit for the police, and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.
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 14 January 1994 in Regular Second Appeal No. 220 of 1989, the Punjab and Haryana High Court (Coram: A.L. Bahri, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Ex-Constable, Guard party, residence of SSP Amritsar, Punjab Police.
- Register number
- PB 02 CW 0002
- Case reference
- Regular Second Appeal No. 220 of 1989 / (1994) 01 P&H CK 0128
- Court and date
- Punjab and Haryana High Court (Coram: A.L. Bahri, J.), 14 January 1994
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Ex-Constable, Guard party, residence of SSP Amritsar, Punjab Police
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as dismissed from service.
- Provisions invoked
- Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934; Rule 16.24(1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “Such an act on his part is gravest in nature which would completely make him unfit for police department” (at para 4)
- 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 14 January 1994 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.
“Such an act on his part is gravest in nature which would completely make him unfit for police department” (para 4)
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.