29 Oct 2009
Order issued
ConcludedThe Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 648/1997
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2009-0032Dungarpur, RajasthanJudgment 29 October 2009
Dungarpur Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.
The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. Rajasthan Police Constable of Police Line, Dungarpur was charge-sheeted in 1994 for allegedly taking a Rs 40,000 bribe from a Dungarpur resident, an accused in a customs/smuggling matter, in February 1992, tarnishing the image of the police. The inquiry officer found him not guilty, but the disciplinary authority disagreed after notice and removed him from service in September 1995 — affirmed in appeal in August 1996 — while the ACJM No. 1, Udaipur acquitted him in the related criminal case under Sections 420 and 379 IPC in August 1995. The court found the complainant and police investigation witnesses supported the bribe allegation, held the disciplinary authority was entitled to disagree with reasons after notice, and held the benefit-of-doubt criminal acquittal does not vitiate a departmental finding on preponderance of probability. It dismissed the writ petition, sustaining the removal. 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 29 October 2009 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 648/1997, the Rajasthan High Court (Coram: Govind Mathur, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Police Line, Dungarpur.
- Register number
- RJ 12 CW 0001
- Case reference
- S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 648/1997
- Court and date
- Rajasthan High Court (Coram: Govind Mathur, J.), 29 October 2009
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Police Line, Dungarpur
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Rule 16 of the Rajasthan CCA Rules, 1958; Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “In the present case, the complainant [name withheld] and other police officials, who made investigation in the case, supported the allegations. Sole defence of the delinquent employee was that the police officials made wrong statements because of bias, but he …” (at para n/a)
- 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 Rajasthan High Court judgment dated 29 October 2009 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 complainant [name withheld] and other police officials, who made investigation in the case, supported the allegations. Sole defence of the delinquent employee was that the police officials made wrong statements because of bias, but he …” (para n/a)
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.