CW-2014-0012Pali, RajasthanJudgment 11 December 2014

Asgar Ali vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. (with Idan vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissed the special appeals of Sub-Inspector Idan and Constable Asgar Ali of Desuri Police Station, Pali, sustaining their 1978 dismissals after a Rule 16 departmental enquiry. On 28 June 1975 the officers seized 15 kg of contraband opium from five persons but, instead of recording the search, seizure and detention in police records, misappropriated the opium, released the accused and disposed of the contraband for illegal consideration, with the constable abandoning duty to assist. The Court held the departmental findings on non-recording could not be faulted and could not be displaced by a criminal acquittal secured about 18 years later on minor contradictions, applying the differing standards of proof in departmental and criminal proceedings. 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 →

Report card

By judgment dated 11 December 2014 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 253/2006 with No. 12/2005, the Rajasthan High Court (Coram: Sunil Ambwani, Prakash Gupta, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against 2 police personnel, namely: Asgar Ali (Constable); Idan (Sub-Inspector).

Register number
RJ 22 CW 0002
Case reference
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 253/2006 with No. 12/2005
Court and date
Rajasthan High Court (Coram: Sunil Ambwani, Prakash Gupta, JJ.), 11 December 2014
Officer(s) at the material time
Asgar Ali (Constable); Idan (Sub-Inspector)
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Not stated in the cited sources
Finding of the Court (extract)
“The findings in this regard in the departmental proceedings, cannot be faulted, nor its effect cannot be taken away on the findings recorded in a criminal case, after a period of about 18 years, in which on minor contradictions and …” (at para 30)
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.

The Rajasthan High Court judgment dated 11 December 2014 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 findings in this regard in the departmental proceedings, cannot be faulted, nor its effect cannot be taken away on the findings recorded in a criminal case, after a period of about 18 years, in which on minor contradictions and …” (para 30)

Institutional response

1
11 Dec 2014

Order issued

Concluded
Rajasthan High Court External · Binding

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

Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 253/2006 with No. 12/2005
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.