15 Feb 2005
Order issued
ConcludedThe Uttarakhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: 2005(2) AWC 1520 (UHC)
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2005-0005Nainital, UttarakhandJudgment 15 February 2005
Mahavir Prasad v. U.P. State Public Services Tribunal and Others
Replace closing boilerplate to note the State case as recorded in the dismissal order and Tribunal findings (para 8). 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 February 2005 in Writ Petition against Tribunal judgment and order dated 06.07.2000, the Uttarakhand High Court (Coram: V. S. Sirpurkar, Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Mahavir Prasad (Constable).
- Register number
- UK 04 CW 0001
- Case reference
- Writ Petition against Tribunal judgment and order dated 06.07.2000 / 2005(2) AWC 1520 (UHC)
- Court and date
- Uttarakhand High Court (Coram: V. S. Sirpurkar, Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.), 15 February 2005
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Mahavir Prasad (Constable)
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 7 of the Police Act
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “Therefore, we are of the view that the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed.” (at para 9)
- 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 Uttarakhand High Court judgment dated 15 February 2005 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.
“Therefore, we are of the view that the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed.” (para 9)
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.