25 Jul 2006
Order issued
ConcludedThe Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: 2007(1) BLJR 354; [2006(4) JCR 419 (JHR)]
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2006-0025Bokaro, JharkhandJudgment 25 July 2006
CISF Constable vs Union of India and Others
The Jharkhand High Court (R.K. Merathia J.) on 25 July 2006 dismissed the writ petition of CISF constable of the Bokaro Steel Plant unit, challenging his dismissal from service. The court recorded that he had been found guilty in a departmental enquiry of conspiring to commit theft inside the plant on 29 April 1995, absenting himself from the 'G' Coy barracks in the early hours of 30 April 1995, and attempting to steal undertaking property from Shed No. C-22. The court found that he was caught red-handed in civil dress outside the perimeter wall at about 1:30 a.m., that documents had been duly furnished to him, and that the disciplinary authority had rejected his pleas by a well-reasoned order. It held the punishment of dismissal was not harsh for a man whose duty was to protect the company from theft, and dismissed the writ petition, so the dismissal stands. 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 25 July 2006 in CWJC No. 2094 of 1997 (R), the Jharkhand High Court (Coram: R.K. Merathia, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, CISF Unit, Bokaro Steel Plant.
- Register number
- JH 09 CW 0001
- Case reference
- CWJC No. 2094 of 1997 (R) / 2007(1) BLJR 354; [2006(4) JCR 419 (JHR)]
- Court and date
- Jharkhand High Court (Coram: R.K. Merathia, J.), 25 July 2006
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, CISF Unit, Bokaro Steel Plant
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as dismissed from service.
- Provisions invoked
- Not stated in the cited sources
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “The punishment also cannot be said to be harsh in view of the aforesaid charges proved against the petitioner whose duty was to protect the company from theft.” (at para 5)
- 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 Jharkhand High Court judgment dated 25 July 2006 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 punishment also cannot be said to be harsh in view of the aforesaid charges proved against the petitioner whose duty was to protect the company from theft.” (para 5)
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.