12 Apr 2016
Order issued
ConcludedThe Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: W.P.(S) No. 5239 of 2014
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2016-0023Bokaro, JharkhandJudgment 12 April 2016
Police 728 [name withheld] [name withheld] vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
The Jharkhand High Court Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of Bokaro constable, appointed on 12 July 2006 on compassionate ground, challenging his dismissal dated 31 July 2014. The court found he had suppressed a Hulasganj criminal case in his appointment declaration, exposed by letter dated 1 October 2011, and that his detailed show cause reply was considered before dismissal. The court held, following R. Radhakrishnan, that withholding material information about criminal antecedents is itself moral turpitude rendering him unsuitable, regardless of the criminal case outcome. The dismissal therefore stands. 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 April 2016 in W.P.(S) No. 5239 of 2014, the Jharkhand High Court (Coram: Pramath Patnaik, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Jharkhand Police, Bokaro Police Line.
- Register number
- JH 09 CW 0006
- Case reference
- W.P.(S) No. 5239 of 2014
- Court and date
- Jharkhand High Court (Coram: Pramath Patnaik, J.), 12 April 2016
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Jharkhand Police, Bokaro Police Line
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Not stated in the cited sources
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “the impugned order of dismissal dated 31.07.2014 passed by respondent no.3 pertaining to dismissal from service, does not warrant interference by this Court.” (at para 9)
- 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 12 April 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.
“the impugned order of dismissal dated 31.07.2014 passed by respondent no.3 pertaining to dismissal from service, does not warrant interference by this Court.” (para 9)
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.