12 Mar 2015
Order issued
ConcludedThe Allahabad High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: Writ-A No. 28337 of 2009
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2015-0024Uttar PradeshJudgment 12 March 2015
Civil Police Head Constable v. State of U.P. and Others
The Allahabad High Court (single Judge, 12 March 2015) dismissed the writ petition of Head Constable [name withheld] of the Civil Police and sustained his dismissal dated 16 October 2008 for contracting a second marriage in 1978 during the subsistence of his 1965 first marriage, without the permission required by Rule 29 of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. The Court noted both wives had deposed before the enquiry officer and the misconduct surfaced on the first wife's complaint of ill-treatment. The Court held that a member of the police force is charged with upholding the law and standards of civil society, and the punishment did not shock its conscience. The appellate (30 January 2009) and revisional (26 December 2009) affirmations were left undisturbed, with no compensation ordered. 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 12 March 2015 in Writ-A No. 28337 of 2009, the Allahabad High Court (Coram: Yashwant Varma, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Head Constable, Civil Police, U.P. Police.
- Register number
- UP 00 CW 0003
- Case reference
- Writ-A No. 28337 of 2009
- Court and date
- Allahabad High Court (Coram: Yashwant Varma, J.), 12 March 2015
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Head Constable, Civil Police, U.P. Police
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- the Rule 29, U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956; the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “A member of the police force is charged with the duty of maintaining the law, upholding the standards of a civil society. The punishment, viewed in light of the above facts, does not shock the conscience of this Court warranting …” (at para 17)
- 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 Allahabad High Court judgment dated 12 March 2015 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 member of the police force is charged with the duty of maintaining the law, upholding the standards of a civil society. The punishment, viewed in light of the above facts, does not shock the conscience of this Court warranting …” (para 17)
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.