9 Mar 2016
Order issued
ConcludedThe Allahabad High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: Special Appeal No. 200 of 2016
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2016-0019Uttar PradeshJudgment 9 March 2016
Uttar Pradesh Woman v. State of U.P. and Others
The Allahabad High Court (Division Bench led by the Chief Justice, 9 March 2016) dismissed Special Appeal No. 200 of 2016 and sustained the termination dated 7 May 2010 of a U.P. Police constable found in a state of intoxication while on security duty near bank premises on 23 July 2009. The Court noted the constable was medically examined the same day, suspended the next day, and subjected to a regular departmental enquiry with opportunity to adduce evidence and cross-examine witnesses. The Court held the medical report and corroborating witness statements provided sufficient material to establish the charge, rejecting the plea that intoxication could only be proved by blood and urine examination. The appellate (21 August 2010), revisional (4 November 2010) and single-judge (2 February 2016) 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 9 March 2016 in Special Appeal No. 200 of 2016, the Allahabad High Court (Coram: Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Yashwant Varma, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, U.P. Police (bank security duty, Varanasi).
- Register number
- UP 00 CW 0005
- Case reference
- Special Appeal No. 200 of 2016
- Court and date
- Allahabad High Court (Coram: Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Yashwant Varma, JJ.), 9 March 2016
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, U.P. Police (bank security duty, Varanasi)
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Not stated in the cited sources
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “In our opinion, bearing in mind the medical report as well as the statement of witnesses who were examined in the course of the disciplinary proceedings, there existed on record sufficient material to establish the charge levelled against the appellant.” (at para 7)
- 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 9 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 our opinion, bearing in mind the medical report as well as the statement of witnesses who were examined in the course of the disciplinary proceedings, there existed on record sufficient material to establish the charge levelled against the appellant.” (para 7)
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.