CW-2023-0053RajasthanJudgment 20 September 2023

New Delhi Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others

The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. Constable of the 12th Battalion RAC (IR) at Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, was charge-sheeted in September 2007 for indiscipline and leading an immoral life, namely maintaining an illicit relationship despite being married with children and neglecting his family. The court recorded that he did not appear before the inquiry officer, filed no response to the inquiry report, was dismissed in March 2008, and his departmental appeal and review were rejected in 2009 and 2017. The court held codified conduct rules barring an immoral life cannot be tested against mythology or foreign custom, found no infirmity in the inquiry or dismissal, and dismissed the writ. An intra-court appeal (D.B. SAW/916/2023) is noted on the judgment memo. 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 →

Report card

By judgment dated 20 September 2023 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18980/2017, the Rajasthan High Court (Coram: Ashok Kumar Gaur, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Rajasthan Armed Constabulary, 12th Battalion RAC (IR), C Company, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi.

Register number
RJ 00 CW 0009
Case reference
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18980/2017 / [2023:RJ-JP:23836]; 2023 SCC OnLine Raj 1949
Court and date
Rajasthan High Court (Coram: Ashok Kumar Gaur, J.), 20 September 2023
Officer(s) at the material time
Constable, Rajasthan Armed Constabulary, 12th Battalion RAC (IR), C Company, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958; Rule 4(iv) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971
Finding of the Court (extract)
“This Court finds that the Authorities have not committed an error in initiating the enquiry against the petitioner and passing the order by imposing punishment of dismissal from service.” (at para 96)
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.

The Rajasthan High Court judgment dated 20 September 2023 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.

Recorded allegations

1
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.

What the court found

Holding not recorded separately.

“This Court finds that the Authorities have not committed an error in initiating the enquiry against the petitioner and passing the order by imposing punishment of dismissal from service.” (para 96)

Institutional response

1
20 Sep 2023

Order issued

Concluded
Rajasthan High Court External · Binding

The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.

Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: [2023:RJ-JP:23836]; 2023 SCC OnLine Raj 1949
Not yet re-checked.

Follow-up history

1
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.

Keep exploring

These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.