19 Jun 2025
Order issued
ConcludedThe Chhattisgarh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: 2025:CGHC:25555-DB
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2025-0009Rajnandgaon, ChhattisgarhJudgment 19 June 2025
Gaindatola, village Khoratola Police Constable vs State of Chhattisgarh & Others
Drop/replace tagline: the proved departmental charge (charge-sheet, IO report, appellate finding) is the institutional case and is fully recorded. 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 19 June 2025 in WA No. 372 of 2025 (arising from WPS No. 285 of 2012), the Chhattisgarh High Court (Coram: Ramesh Sinha, Bibhu Datta Guru, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, PS Gaindatola, Rajnandgaon.
- Register number
- CG 08 CW 0002
- Case reference
- WA No. 372 of 2025 (arising from WPS No. 285 of 2012) / 2025:CGHC:25555-DB
- Court and date
- Chhattisgarh High Court (Coram: Ramesh Sinha, Bibhu Datta Guru, JJ.), 19 June 2025
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, PS Gaindatola, Rajnandgaon
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “there is some evidence to prove the said charges, the charges were rightly proved and the punishment awarded is just and proper.” (at para 19)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Disciplinary action upheld. Sentence: dismissal.
- Present status of the proceedings
- The judgment is recent and may be subject to appeal; the pendency of an appeal is not a finding.
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
Current position
Judgment dated 19 June 2025. This judgment may still be subject to appeal; initiation or pendency of an appeal is not a finding.
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.
“there is some evidence to prove the said charges, the charges were rightly proved and the punishment awarded is just and proper.” (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.