15 Jan 2002
Order issued
ConcludedThe Gujarat High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: (2002)2GLR1126
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2002-0017Gandhinagar, GujaratJudgment 15 January 2002
[name withheld] vs P.K. Menon or his Successor-in-Office
The Gujarat High Court (Sharad D. Dave, J.) on 15 January 2002 rejected the writ petition of CRPF Constable and confirmed his dismissal from service ordered on 20 April 1988. He had pleaded guilty before the Assistant Commandant-cum-Judicial Magistrate to absence without leave in April 1988 and refusal to accept a suspension order, was convicted under Sections 10(m)/(n) of the CRPF Act and sentenced to 7 days rigorous imprisonment, then dismissed under Section 12(1). The court held no separate departmental inquiry was required where dismissal follows conviction, termed refusal of the suspension order grave misconduct, and declined to treat dismissal as disproportionate given armed-force discipline. No civilian victim is involved; this is an internal-indiscipline dismissal upheld on judicial review. 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 15 January 2002 in Special Civil Application No. 6711 of 1989, the Gujarat High Court (Coram: Sharad D. Dave, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Group Centre, CRPF, Gandhinagar.
- Register number
- GJ 18 CW 0001
- Case reference
- Special Civil Application No. 6711 of 1989 / (2002)2GLR1126
- Court and date
- Gujarat High Court (Coram: Sharad D. Dave, J.), 15 January 2002
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Group Centre, CRPF, Gandhinagar
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as dismissed from service.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 10(m) of the CRPF Act; Section 10(n) of the CRPF Act; Section 12(1) of the CRPF Act
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “If the appellant was not keeping good health, he should have taken sick leave and should remain in the hospital. Later on, by not accepting the suspension order, he has committed grave misconduct.” (at para 17)
- 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 15 January 2002 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.
“If the appellant was not keeping good health, he should have taken sick leave and should remain in the hospital. Later on, by not accepting the suspension order, he has committed grave misconduct.” (para 17)
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.