22 Mar 2010
Order issued
ConcludedThe Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: (2010) 2 WLN 465
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2010-0026Bikaner, RajasthanJudgment 22 March 2010
Bikaner Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Another
Constable was charge-sheeted under Rule 16 CCA Rules for habitual absence (earlier dismissed in 1983, reinstated in 1986; absent 40 times in about 8.5 years), inattention to duties, indisciplined conduct and blackmail of officers, and engineering a false ACB bribery trap against Inspector (Wireless) [name withheld] over what was a loan repayment. He did not participate in the inquiry despite opportunities; the SP Bikaner dismissed him on 12.06.1991, the DIG dismissed his appeal on 03.01.1992, and the Single Judge dismissed his writ on 29.05.1997. The Division Bench held he could not complain of ex parte proceedings, no prejudice was shown, he relied on a prima facie fabricated document, and the habitual-absenteeism finding in a disciplined service was sound. It dismissed the appeal with Rs.5,500 costs (no single incident date; misconduct spanned 1983-1991).
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 22 March 2010 in Special Appeal (Writ) arising from CWP No. 1814/1992, the Rajasthan High Court (Coram: Jagdish Bhalla, Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Bikaner district police, Rajasthan.
- Register number
- RJ 07 CW 0002
- Case reference
- Special Appeal (Writ) arising from CWP No. 1814/1992 / (2010) 2 WLN 465
- Court and date
- Rajasthan High Court (Coram: Jagdish Bhalla, Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.), 22 March 2010
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Bikaner district police, Rajasthan
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Rule 16 of the Rajasthan CCA Rules, 1958; Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,500/- (five thousand and five hundred).” (at para 27)
- 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 22 March 2010 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 appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,500/- (five thousand and five hundred).” (para 27)
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.