18 Apr 2013
Order issued
ConcludedThe Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: (2013) 2 JLJR 628
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2013-0025East Singhbhum, JharkhandJudgment 18 April 2013
Patmada Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
The judgment of the Jharkhand High Court records the following account. Constable of Patmada Police Station, East Singhbhum, was apprehended by villagers on the night of 24/25 September 2000 at the scene of a godown theft near the Swarnrekha river, leading to Patmada P.S. Case No. 66 of 2000 under IPC sections 461, 379 and 411. He was dismissed in August 2001 after a departmental enquiry in which villagers deposed against him, and his appeal was rejected. The Jharkhand High Court found the enquiry report had been supplied with the show-cause notice and no prejudice was shown, and held that theft involving moral turpitude warranted dismissal. The Court dismissed the writ petition, and the Division Bench later dismissed his appeal, holding departmental proof could stand despite his criminal acquittal on hostile witnesses.
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 18 April 2013 in W.P.(S) No. 704 of 2003, the Jharkhand High Court (Coram: S. Chandrashekhar, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Patmada Police Station, East Singhbhum.
- Register number
- JH 05 CW 0005
- Case reference
- W.P.(S) No. 704 of 2003 / (2013) 2 JLJR 628
- Court and date
- Jharkhand High Court (Coram: S. Chandrashekhar, J.), 18 April 2013
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Patmada Police Station, East Singhbhum
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 461 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “A perusal of the enquiry report would disclose that the petitioner was apprehended on the spot by the villagers in the night of 24/25.9.2000 and a First Information Report was lodged against him. During the departmental enquiry, the villagers have …” (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 18 April 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.
“A perusal of the enquiry report would disclose that the petitioner was apprehended on the spot by the villagers in the night of 24/25.9.2000 and a First Information Report was lodged against him. During the departmental enquiry, the villagers have …” (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.