11 Mar 2022
Order issued
ConcludedThe Manipur High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: (2022) 03 MAN CK 0025
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2022-0002Thoubal, ManipurJudgment 11 March 2022
The State of Manipur v. Manipur Police Rifleman
The judgment of the Manipur High Court records the following account. Rifleman of the 4th India Reserve Battalion was arrested on 19 May 2015 after investigation showed he had become an active worker of CorCom, a conglomerate of valley-based militant outfits, throwing hand grenades in December 2014 and transporting arms while in uniform. He was dismissed on 25 March 2017 by the Governor under Article 311(2)(c) on a Committee of Advisors' recommendation. A Single Judge set aside the suspension and dismissal on 27 January 2020. The Division Bench allowed the State's writ appeals, holding the Committee's constitution and the Governor's satisfaction valid, and confirmed the dismissal order.
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 11 March 2022 in WA Nos. 13 and 14 of 2021, the Manipur High Court (Coram: Sanjay Kumar, Lanusungkum Jamir, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Rifleman, 4th India Reserve Battalion, Manipur Police.
- Register number
- MN 04 CW 0002
- Case reference
- WA Nos. 13 and 14 of 2021 / (2022) 03 MAN CK 0025
- Court and date
- Manipur High Court (Coram: Sanjay Kumar, Lanusungkum Jamir, JJ.), 11 March 2022
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Rifleman, 4th India Reserve Battalion, Manipur Police
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 121 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 121A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 16(1)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Section 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959; Section 25(1B) of the Arms Act, 1959; Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908; Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “On the above analysis, we find that the order of dismissal passed against [name withheld] did not merit interference and the learned Judge erred in setting it aside. We accordingly set aside the Judgment & Order dated 27.01.2020 in W.P. …” (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 Manipur High Court judgment dated 11 March 2022 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.
“On the above analysis, we find that the order of dismissal passed against [name withheld] did not merit interference and the learned Judge erred in setting it aside. We accordingly set aside the Judgment & Order dated 27.01.2020 in W.P. …” (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.