1 Feb 2018
Order issued
ConcludedThe Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 521/2009
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2018-0022Rajsamand, RajasthanJudgment 1 February 2018
Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others
The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. Constable, posted at Deogarh, proceeded on leave on 13 August 2002 and was accused during unauthorised absence of joining associates in crushing a Deogarh resident under a jeep over a land dispute and passing it off as an accident. The court recorded a criminal trial under Sections 302/120B/34 IPC ending in acquittal on 8 October 2003, followed by a six-charge departmental inquiry ending in dismissal on 11 December 2003, affirmed on appeal in 2005 and review in 2008. The court held the inquiry strictly lawful, the murder charge proved on eye-witness [name withheld] with corroboration, and the benefit-of-doubt acquittal no bar given differing standards of proof, and dismissed the writ. The dismissal was later set aside by a Division Bench in April 2019 but restored by the Supreme Court in October 2020. 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 1 February 2018 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 521/2009, the Rajasthan High Court (Coram: Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Rajasthan Police, Deogarh, District Rajsamand.
- Register number
- RJ 30 CW 0001
- Case reference
- S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 521/2009
- Court and date
- Rajasthan High Court (Coram: Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.), 1 February 2018
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Rajasthan Police, Deogarh, District Rajsamand
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “The departmental enquiry, in this case, includes consideration of the evidence given by Jodh Singh, Hamer Singh, [name withheld], Shanker Singh etc. In the departmental enquiry, the authority has categorically found that Jodh Singh has given the evidence as an …” (at para 20)
- 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 Rajasthan High Court judgment dated 1 February 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.
“The departmental enquiry, in this case, includes consideration of the evidence given by Jodh Singh, Hamer Singh, [name withheld], Shanker Singh etc. In the departmental enquiry, the authority has categorically found that Jodh Singh has given the evidence as an …” (para 20)
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.