30 May 2022
Order issued
ConcludedThe Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: LPA No. 565 of 2020 (O&M)
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2022-0007Rohtak, HaryanaJudgment 30 May 2022
State of Haryana and Others vs Satish Kumar
A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the State appeal in LPA 565 of 2020, set aside the Single Judge reinstatement order of 23 October 2019, and restored the dismissal of ASI Satish Kumar of CIA-3 Rohtak. The Court found he made complainant [name withheld] believe he could get his brother dropped from the accused in FIR 454 of 2014, and the Vigilance Bureau arrested him with hands turned pink from the marked money. He was dismissed on 29 October 2015 after an enquiry in which the complainant supported the charge, though he later turned hostile in the criminal trial ending in acquittal. The Bench held the dismissal rested on independent enquiry evidence and the acquittal was no bar, dismissing the employee writ. 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 30 May 2022 in LPA No. 565 of 2020 (O&M), the Punjab and Haryana High Court (Coram: G. S. Sandhawalia, Vikas Suri, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Satish Kumar (Assistant Sub-Inspector).
- Register number
- HR 12 CW 0009
- Case reference
- LPA No. 565 of 2020 (O&M)
- Court and date
- Punjab and Haryana High Court (Coram: G. S. Sandhawalia, Vikas Suri, JJ.), 30 May 2022
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Satish Kumar (Assistant Sub-Inspector)
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “It is not disputed that the writ petitioner was arrested by the State Vigilance Bureau team and his hands had turned pink and, thus, he had handled the money.” (at para 19)
- 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 Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment dated 30 May 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.
“It is not disputed that the writ petitioner was arrested by the State Vigilance Bureau team and his hands had turned pink and, thus, he had handled the money.” (para 19)
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.