8 May 2024
Order issued
ConcludedThe Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: 2024 INSC 392; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 845
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2024-0036OdishaJudgment 8 May 2024
Union of India & Ors. v. CRPF Head Constable
The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. CRPF Head Constable was charged with abusing and assaulting Hawaldar an Odisha resident with a stick on 18 June 2005 during Forest Camp Training, with injuries confirmed medically. He was compulsorily retired on 16 February 2006 after an inquiry found the charges proved. The Supreme Court held Rule 27 CRPF Rules intra vires, found no perversity in the enquiry, and held the penalty not shockingly disproportionate for a member of a disciplined force. It allowed the Union's appeal, set aside the Orissa High Court orders, dismissed the writ petition, and affirmed compulsory retirement.
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 8 May 2024 in Civil Appeal No. 6135 of 2024 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 4106 of 2021), the Supreme Court of India (Coram: D. Y. Chandrachud, Manoj Misra, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Head Constable, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF).
- Register number
- OD 00 CW 0002
- Case reference
- Civil Appeal No. 6135 of 2024 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 4106 of 2021) / 2024 INSC 392; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 845
- Court and date
- Supreme Court of India (Coram: D. Y. Chandrachud, Manoj Misra, JJ.), 8 May 2024
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Head Constable, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF)
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as compulsorily retired.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 11 of the CRPF Act, 1949; Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “Rather, considering his past service, already a sympathetic view has been taken in the matter and no further latitude need be shown to the respondent who was part of a disciplined force and has been found guilty of assaulting his …” (at para 35)
- 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 Supreme Court of India judgment dated 8 May 2024 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.
“Rather, considering his past service, already a sympathetic view has been taken in the matter and no further latitude need be shown to the respondent who was part of a disciplined force and has been found guilty of assaulting his …” (para 35)
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.