2 Mar 2017
Order issued
ConcludedThe Allahabad High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: Writ-A No. 11464 of 2010
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2017-0016Saharanpur, Uttar PradeshJudgment 2 March 2017
U.P. Police Constable v. State of U.P. and Others
The Allahabad High Court (Division Bench, 2 March 2017) dismissed the writ petition of U.P. Police Constable, posted at Saharanpur, who had been dismissed from service on 28 January 1994 after remaining unauthorisedly absent for 503 days from 8 May 1992 instead of joining a Refresher Course at the Police Training Centre, Moradabad. The Court noted the enquiry officer had disbelieved his private medical reports since he had not been examined at a district hospital as the regulations required. The Court held there was no substance in the plea that dismissal was disproportionate to the charge of such prolonged absence. The appellate rejection (27 July 1994) and the U.P. Public Services Tribunal's dismissal of Claim Petition No. 1287 of 1995 (1 December 2009) were left undisturbed, and no compensation was 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 2 March 2017 in Writ-A No. 11464 of 2010, the Allahabad High Court (Coram: Dilip Gupta, Siddhartha Varma, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, U.P. Police, Saharanpur.
- Register number
- UP 11 CW 0001
- Case reference
- Writ-A No. 11464 of 2010
- Court and date
- Allahabad High Court (Coram: Dilip Gupta, Siddhartha Varma, JJ.), 2 March 2017
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, U.P. Police, Saharanpur
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as dismissed from service.
- Provisions invoked
- Regulation (disciplinary inquiry) of the U.P. Police Regulations, 1861
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “We, therefore, do not find any substance in the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was disproportionate to the charge levelled against him.” (at para 25)
- 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 2 March 2017 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.
“We, therefore, do not find any substance in the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was disproportionate to the charge levelled against him.” (para 25)
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.