29 Aug 2017
Order issued
ConcludedThe Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: L.P.A. No. 220 of 2009
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2017-0029Ranchi, JharkhandJudgment 29 August 2017
Central Reserve Police Constable and others vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
The Jharkhand High Court Division Bench dismissed the appeal of CRPF Constable against his removal for reporting for Quarter Guard duty in a drunken condition after consuming country-made liquor and for four days of unauthorised absence in 1996. The court held the charges stood proved after full opportunity, noting the petitioner had admitted guilt, and that removal under Section 11(1) read with Rule 27 needed no prosecution under Sections 9/10. It held the penalty was not shockingly disproportionate for a disciplined force. The removal, already affirmed in appeal, on quantum representation and in writ, therefore 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 29 August 2017 in L.P.A. No. 220 of 2009, the Jharkhand High Court (Coram: Aparesh Kumar Singh, B. B. Mangalmurti, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Central Reserve Police Force.
- Register number
- JH 01 CW 0010
- Case reference
- L.P.A. No. 220 of 2009
- Court and date
- Jharkhand High Court (Coram: Aparesh Kumar Singh, B. B. Mangalmurti, JJ.), 29 August 2017
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Central Reserve Police Force
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949; Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “It was also held that the punishment of removal from service was proportionate to the gravity of misconduct. Therefore in such circumstances, we find no occasion to interfere in the findings of the writ Court.” (at para 8)
- 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 29 August 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.
“It was also held that the punishment of removal from service was proportionate to the gravity of misconduct. Therefore in such circumstances, we find no occasion to interfere in the findings of the writ Court.” (para 8)
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.