1 Mar 2016
Order issued
ConcludedThe Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: Letters Patent Appeal No. 1620 of 2012
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2016-0018Bhagalpur, BiharJudgment 1 March 2016
Railway Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Others
[name withheld], a Katihar Rail Police constable posted at Kharik station, was dismissed in May 2001 for complicity in the January 2000 armed attack on his own police post in which personnel were injured and arms looted. The court held the co-accused Section 164 statement was relevant departmental evidence, the Evidence Act does not strictly govern departmental enquiries, and no prejudice from procedural lapses had been proved. The court found no error in the Single Bench order upholding the punishment. The appeal was dismissed and the dismissal stands.
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 1 March 2016 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1620 of 2012, the Patna High Court (Coram: Hemant Gupta, Navaniti Prasad Singh, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Railway Police, Katihar.
- Register number
- BR 10 CW 0011
- Case reference
- Letters Patent Appeal No. 1620 of 2012
- Court and date
- Patna High Court (Coram: Hemant Gupta, Navaniti Prasad Singh, JJ.), 1 March 2016
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Railway Police, Katihar
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “In view of the above, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court which may warrant interference in the present Letters Patent Appeal.” (at para 15)
- 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 Patna High Court judgment dated 1 March 2016 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.
“In view of the above, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court which may warrant interference in the present Letters Patent Appeal.” (para 15)
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.