3 Jan 2018
Order issued
ConcludedThe Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: Writ Petition No. 3479 of 2015
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2018-0020Gwalior, Madhya PradeshJudgment 3 January 2018
Gwalior Police Constable and others vs State of Madhya Pradesh
The judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court records the following account. Constable [name withheld] was on guard duty over undertrial Pradeep Rathore in the general ward of J.A. Hospital, Gwalior, when the undertrial escaped between 3 am and 6 am on 13 May 2014. The department found he left his post to answer nature's call without informing a fellow constable, and dismissed him from service; the appeal was affirmed. The court held the joint enquiry under Rule 18 of the 1966 CCA Rules was valid, the enquiry officer had not acted as prosecutor, and the petitioner was solely guilty of dereliction. It declined to interfere with the dismissal and dismissed the writ petition. 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 3 January 2018 in Writ Petition No. 3479 of 2015, the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Coram: Sanjay Yadav, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, District Executive Force, Gwalior.
- Register number
- MP 07 CW 0008
- Case reference
- Writ Petition No. 3479 of 2015
- Court and date
- Madhya Pradesh High Court (Coram: Sanjay Yadav, J.), 3 January 2018
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, District Executive Force, Gwalior
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Not stated in the cited sources
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “this Court declines to interfere with the punishment meted out to the petitioner.” (at para 13)
- 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 Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment dated 3 January 2018 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.
“this Court declines to interfere with the punishment meted out to the petitioner.” (para 13)
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.