CW-2010-0023GujaratJudgment 5 March 2010

[name withheld] vs District Superintendent of Police & 3

The judgment of the Gujarat High Court records the following account. Unarmed Constable, in service since 1978, was acquitted (benefit of doubt) in a 1987 murder trial, then chargesheeted (16 May 1988) for absence from duty (proved) and extra-marital relations (partly proved). The DSP imposed stoppage of one increment (26 Dec 1990); the DIG enhanced it to dismissal from service (28 Aug 1991), confirmed by the IG (9 Jun 1993) and Home Department (13 Jan 1994). Later proceedings: on 18 July 2013, the Gujarat High Court set aside the order recorded in this judgment (concerning [name withheld]); the outcome recorded here therefore does not stand. The Single Judge (5 Mar 2010) dismissed his petition; on appeal the Division Bench set aside the dismissal and restored the DSP's penalty ((2013) 3 GLR 2729).

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 →

Report card

By judgment dated 5 March 2010 in Special Civil Application No. 10751 of 1994, the Gujarat High Court (Coram: K.S. Jhaveri, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Unarmed Police Constable.

Register number
GJ 00 CW 0003
Case reference
Special Civil Application No. 10751 of 1994
Court and date
Gujarat High Court (Coram: K.S. Jhaveri, J.), 5 March 2010
Officer(s) at the material time
Unarmed Police Constable
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 respondent No.2 has assigned cogent and convincing reasons for arriving at a conclusion. Such a serious misconduct if is taken lightly it may adversely affect the moral of the police force and may also affect the moral character of …” (at para n/a)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Disciplinary action upheld. Sentence: dismissal.
Present status of the proceedings
Gujarat High Court, 18 July 2013: conviction set aside.

Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.

The Gujarat High Court judgment dated 5 March 2010 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.

Recorded allegations

1
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.

What the court found

Holding not recorded separately.

“The respondent No.2 has assigned cogent and convincing reasons for arriving at a conclusion. Such a serious misconduct if is taken lightly it may adversely affect the moral of the police force and may also affect the moral character of …” (para n/a)

Institutional response

2
5 Mar 2010

Order issued

Concluded
Gujarat High Court External · Binding

The Gujarat High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.

Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: Special Civil Application No. 10751 of 1994
Not yet re-checked.
18 Jul 2013

Order set aside

Concluded
Gujarat High Court External · Binding

Later proceedings: on 18 July 2013, the Gujarat High Court set aside the order recorded in this judgment (concerning [name withheld]); the outcome recorded here therefore does not stand.

Later proceeding · Conviction not standing.
Not yet re-checked.

Follow-up history

1
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.

Keep exploring

These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.