11 Aug 2026
Order issued
ConcludedThe Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: LPAW No. 93 of 2012
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2026-0054Jammu, Jammu and KashmirJudgment 11 August 2026
State of J&K and Others vs J&K Armed Police Head Constable/Cashier
The judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court records the following account. Head Constable/[name withheld] of the 8th Battalion, J&K Armed Police was arrested in an embezzlement case (FIR No. 46/2005) and, after release on bail in February 2006, never reported back despite repeated notices, leading to dismissal in May 2007 with retrospective effect. A Single Judge had set the dismissal aside and ordered reinstatement with liberty for a fresh inquiry. The Division Bench held the unauthorised-absence charge stood proved and undefended, so no breach of Rule 359 or natural justice arose, but agreed dismissal could not operate retrospectively. Applying R. Jeevaratnam, it severed the retrospective part, sustained the dismissal from 11 May 2007, set aside the writ-court judgment and allowed the State appeal.
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 August 2026 in LPAW No. 93 of 2012, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court (Coram: Sanjeev Kumar, Mohd. Yousuf Wani, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Head Constable/Cashier, 8th Battalion, J&K Armed Police.
- Register number
- JK 02 CW 0003
- Case reference
- LPAW No. 93 of 2012
- Court and date
- Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court (Coram: Sanjeev Kumar, Mohd. Yousuf Wani, JJ.), 11 August 2026
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Head Constable/Cashier, 8th Battalion, J&K Armed Police
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 409 of the Ranbir Penal Code; Rule 359 of the J&K Police Rules
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “For the foregoing reasons, we uphold the order of dismissal impugned in the writ petition as valid from the date of the order, i.e., 11.05.2007.” (at para 27)
- 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 11 August 2026. 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.
“For the foregoing reasons, we uphold the order of dismissal impugned in the writ petition as valid from the date of the order, i.e., 11.05.2007.” (para 27)
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.