10 Nov 2014
Order issued
ConcludedThe Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: (2015) 2 JLJR 38
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2014-0032Dhanbad, JharkhandJudgment 10 November 2014
Bihar Military Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
Constable, first dismissed in 1979 for fleeing patrol duty at Ara railway station — a dismissal that attained finality up to the Supreme Court in 1981 — was reinstated in 1993-94 and posted with BMP-3 at Govindpur, Dhanbad. A later enquiry found that the reinstatement rested on a forged Home Department letter, leading to his dismissal in October 2005 and rejection of his appeal. The Jharkhand High Court held that fraud vitiates everything, so no fresh regular departmental proceeding was required before cancelling an appointment obtained by forgery. The Court found the impugned orders warranted no interference and dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit. 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 →Detailed record
Report card
By judgment dated 10 November 2014 in W.P.(S) No. 6056 of 2007, the Jharkhand High Court (Coram: Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Bihar Military Police-3, Govindpur, Dhanbad.
- Register number
- JH 10 CW 0002
- Case reference
- W.P.(S) No. 6056 of 2007 / (2015) 2 JLJR 38
- Court and date
- Jharkhand High Court (Coram: Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.), 10 November 2014
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Bihar Military Police-3, Govindpur, Dhanbad
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Not stated in the cited sources
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “Hence applying the principles laid down by Hon'ble Court in the case referred herein above the impugned order does not warrant any interference. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.” (at para 22-23)
- 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 10 November 2014 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.
“Hence applying the principles laid down by Hon'ble Court in the case referred herein above the impugned order does not warrant any interference. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.” (para 22-23)
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.