8 Nov 2004
Order issued
ConcludedThe Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: (2005) 1 PLJR 271
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2004-0015BiharJudgment 8 November 2004
Bihar Police Constable vs State of Bihar and Others
Bihar police constable was dismissed after a departmental proceeding found charges of repeated unauthorised absence, dating from his training period, proved; his appeal and memorial were rejected. He alleged denial of natural justice, claiming witnesses were examined behind his back. The Patna High Court (Narayan Roy, J.) held on the record that full opportunities were given, that he absented throughout after filing his written statement and produced no witness or paper showing appearance, and that the absence charges amounted to misconduct for which dismissal was not disproportionate. The court dismissed the writ petition on 8 November 2004, leaving the dismissal undisturbed. 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 8 November 2004 in C.W.J.C. No. 6917 of 2000, the Patna High Court (Coram: Narayan Roy, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Bihar Police.
- Register number
- BR 00 CW 0001
- Case reference
- C.W.J.C. No. 6917 of 2000 / (2005) 1 PLJR 271
- Court and date
- Patna High Court (Coram: Narayan Roy, J.), 8 November 2004
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Bihar Police
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Not stated in the cited sources
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “The charges leveled against the petitioner amounted to misconduct, and, therefore, the order of punishment of dismissal cannot be said to be disproportionate to the guilt.” (at para 6)
- 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 Patna High Court judgment dated 8 November 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.
“The charges leveled against the petitioner amounted to misconduct, and, therefore, the order of punishment of dismissal cannot be said to be disproportionate to the guilt.” (para 6)
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.