29 Jul 2013
Order issued
ConcludedThe Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: (2013) 9 SCC 363
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2013-0009UttarakhandJudgment 29 July 2013
Devendra Kumar vs State of Uttaranchal and Others
The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. Devendra Kumar was selected as a constable in Uttarakhand's September 2001 recruitment and sent for training on 18 October 2001, submitting an affidavit that he had never been involved in any criminal case. Character verification in January 2002 revealed he had in fact been involved in a criminal case in which a final report was later accepted, and he was discharged in April 2002 as a temporary servant. A Single Judge and then a Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court upheld the discharge. The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal, holding that suppression of material information sought by the employer itself amounts to moral turpitude and fraud, so the termination was proper and called for no interference.
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 July 2013 in Civil Appeal (against Special Appeal No. 16 of 2003, Uttarakhand High Court), the Supreme Court of India (Coram: B.S. Chauhan, S.A. Bobde, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Devendra Kumar (Constable (recruit, 2001 batch)).
- Register number
- UK 00 CW 0001
- Case reference
- Civil Appeal (against Special Appeal No. 16 of 2003, Uttarakhand High Court) / (2013) 9 SCC 363
- Court and date
- Supreme Court of India (Coram: B.S. Chauhan, S.A. Bobde, JJ.), 29 July 2013
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Devendra Kumar (Constable (recruit, 2001 batch))
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Not stated in the cited sources
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “The case pending against a person might not involve moral turpitude but suppressing of this information itself amounts to moral turpitude.” (at para 10)
- 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 Supreme Court of India judgment dated 29 July 2013 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 case pending against a person might not involve moral turpitude but suppressing of this information itself amounts to moral turpitude.” (para 10)
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.