14 Feb 2020
Order issued
ConcludedThe Uttarakhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: Writ Petition (S/B) No. 457 of 2016
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2020-0005Pithoragarh, UttarakhandJudgment 14 February 2020
Pithoragarh Police Constable v. State of Uttarakhand
The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed the writ petition of Constable, affirming the Public Services Tribunal's order upholding his dismissal from service on 4 January 2013. The Court recorded that he absented himself in three spells from 26 October 2011 totalling over a year (99, 247 and 86 days), ignoring joining notices, the preliminary-enquiry notice, the charge-sheet, inquiry notices and the show-cause notice. It held the absence was wilful and prolonged rather than of short duration, disbelieving his medical certificates. The Court found no ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 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 14 February 2020 in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 457 of 2016, the Uttarakhand High Court (Coram: Ramesh Ranganathan, Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Police Line, Pithoragarh.
- Register number
- UK 05 CW 0002
- Case reference
- Writ Petition (S/B) No. 457 of 2016
- Court and date
- Uttarakhand High Court (Coram: Ramesh Ranganathan, Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, JJ.), 14 February 2020
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Police Line, Pithoragarh
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as dismissed from service.
- Provisions invoked
- Not stated in the cited sources
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “We are satisfied, in such circumstances, that the order of the Tribunal does not necessitate interference in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.” (at para 22)
- 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 Uttarakhand High Court judgment dated 14 February 2020 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 are satisfied, in such circumstances, that the order of the Tribunal does not necessitate interference in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.” (para 22)
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.