5 Aug 2004
Order issued
ConcludedThe Gujarat High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: [2005(104)FLR215]
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2004-0013Valsad, GujaratJudgment 5 August 2004
District Police Head Constable vs State of Gujarat
The Gujarat High Court (R.M. Doshit, J.) on 5 August 2004 dismissed with costs the writ petition of retired Head Constable and upheld the State Government order deducting Rs. 589.50 per month from his pension for ten years. Disciplinary proceedings begun in 1993 over 1988 misconduct amounting to lack of integrity in the investigation of M. Case No. 6 of 1987 (Vansda) had continued after his 1995 retirement under Rule 189A of the Bombay Civil Services Rules. The court rejected challenges based on competence, delay, denied documents and want of personal hearing, holding lack of integrity proved and the deduction not unconscionably disproportionate. No civilian victim is identified; the penalty is a pension deduction rather than dismissal. 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 5 August 2004 in Special Civil Application No. 3365 of 1998, the Gujarat High Court (Coram: R.M. Doshit, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Head Constable, District Police, Valsad.
- Register number
- GJ 15 CW 0001
- Case reference
- Special Civil Application No. 3365 of 1998 / [2005(104)FLR215]
- Court and date
- Gujarat High Court (Coram: R.M. Doshit, J.), 5 August 2004
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Head Constable, District Police, Valsad
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Rule 189A of the Bombay Civil Services Rules
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “In the present case, the guilt established against the petitioner reveals lack of integrity. The petitioner had also acted in a manner not befitting to a Police Officer.” (at para 8)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Disciplinary action upheld.
- 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 5 August 2004 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.
“In the present case, the guilt established against the petitioner reveals lack of integrity. The petitioner had also acted in a manner not befitting to a Police Officer.” (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.