1 Sep 2000
Order issued
ConcludedThe Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: (2000) 4 RLW 344
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2000-0015Jodhpur, RajasthanJudgment 1 September 2000
Jodhpur Police Constable vs The State of Rajasthan and Others
Police Constable was removed from service after a Rule 16 enquiry found that on the night of 30 August 1987 he misbehaved with a fellow constable's wife, was found fully drunk at Sadar Bazar police station, Jodhpur, fled, and produced a forged M.G. Hospital medical certificate to cover absence from 25 to 30 August 1987. He contended that non-supply of the enquiry report, non-speaking orders, and an excessive penalty vitiated the removal. The Division Bench found the enquiry fair with full opportunity of cross-examination, held that mere non-supply of the report without shown prejudice does not vitiate removal, and called the orders speaking orders. It held removal rather than dismissal was lenient given charges of a very serious nature, and dismissed the special appeal.
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 1 September 2000 in Civil Special Appeal No. 407 of 1999, the Rajasthan High Court (Coram: S.K. Garg, B.J. Shethna, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Sadar Bazar Police Station, Jodhpur.
- Register number
- RJ 19 CW 0001
- Case reference
- Civil Special Appeal No. 407 of 1999 / (2000) 4 RLW 344
- Court and date
- Rajasthan High Court (Coram: S.K. Garg, B.J. Shethna, JJ.), 1 September 2000
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Sadar Bazar Police Station, Jodhpur
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as removed from service.
- Provisions invoked
- Rule 16 of the Rajasthan CCA Rules, 1958
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “The charges levelled against the appellant were of very serious nature. He was a constable in the police department who was found to be mis-behaving with the wife of his neighbour constable.” (at para 5)
- 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 Rajasthan High Court judgment dated 1 September 2000 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.
“The charges levelled against the appellant were of very serious nature. He was a constable in the police department who was found to be mis-behaving with the wife of his neighbour constable.” (para 5)
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.