17 Jan 1956
Order issued
ConcludedThe Bombay High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: AIR 1956 Bom 545
Not yet re-checked.
CW-1956-0001Mumbai City, MaharashtraJudgment 17 January 1956
[name withheld] v. M.M. Chudasama
The Bombay High Court declined to interfere with the dismissal of constable of the Bombay City Police Force, who faced departmental charges arising from a 1950 corruption investigation. The court found he had been heard in full by every authority bound to hear his defence and that setting aside the third dismissal order (23 June 1955) could make a fresh preliminary inquiry impossible with witnesses unavailable. It additionally held the writ petition premature since the statutory appeal to the State Government had not been exhausted. The rule was discharged with no order as to costs, leaving the dismissal intact. 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 17 January 1956 in Special Civil Application No. 1484 of 1955, the Bombay High Court (Coram: Chagla, C.J., Dixit, J., JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Bombay City Police Force.
- Register number
- MH 01 CW 0001
- Case reference
- Special Civil Application No. 1484 of 1955 / AIR 1956 Bom 545
- Court and date
- Bombay High Court (Coram: Chagla, C.J., Dixit, J., JJ.), 17 January 1956
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Bombay City Police Force
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861; Section 25 of the Police Act, 1861; Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Article 227 of the Constitution of India; Article 311 of the Constitution of India
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “The result is that there will be no order on the petition. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.” (at para 10)
- 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 Bombay High Court judgment dated 17 January 1956 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.
“The result is that there will be no order on the petition. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.” (para 10)
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.