9 Dec 2004
Order issued
ConcludedThe Gujarat High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: (2005)2GLR1291
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2004-0016GujaratJudgment 9 December 2004
Gujarat Woman vs District Superintendent of Police
The Gujarat High Court (Anant S. Dave, J.) on 9 December 2004 rejected the Article 226 petition and confirmed the dismissal from service of subordinate police officer ordered on 31 May 1989 by the District Superintendent of Police. A departmental inquiry (conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tharad Division) had held proved the charge that he brought a tribal woman to police quarter Room No. 59, 'C' Block, with ill-intention, framing it as moral turpitude and conduct unbecoming a member of the police force. The court held the charge conclusively proved on reliable evidence, found no illegality in the disciplinary, appellate and revisional orders, and refused to substitute a lesser punishment. The dismissal had already survived departmental appeal, revision to the Director General of Police and a second revision to the Home Department.
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 9 December 2004 in Special Civil Application No. 6520 of 1995, the Gujarat High Court (Coram: Anant S. Dave, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Police personnel, District Police, Gujarat Police.
- Register number
- GJ 00 CW 0001
- Case reference
- Special Civil Application No. 6520 of 1995 / (2005)2GLR1291
- Court and date
- Gujarat High Court (Coram: Anant S. Dave, J.), 9 December 2004
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Police personnel, District Police, Gujarat Police
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as dismissed from service.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 27(C) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951; Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “In the present case, as rightly submitted in paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the District Superintendent of Police, respondent No. 1 herein, the misconduct, which has been proved in the departmental enquiry and upheld by the Disciplinary Authority, …” (at para 11)
- 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 9 December 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, as rightly submitted in paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the District Superintendent of Police, respondent No. 1 herein, the misconduct, which has been proved in the departmental enquiry and upheld by the Disciplinary Authority, …” (para 11)
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.