9 Oct 1964
Order issued
ConcludedThe Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: AIR 1965 SC 1103
Not yet re-checked.
CW-1964-0004Tirupathur, Tamil NaduJudgment 9 October 1964
The State of Madras vs Madras State Police Inspector of Police
The Supreme Court on 9 October 1964 allowed the State appeal and restored the compulsory retirement of Inspector of the Madras State Police. The Court recorded that he demanded Rs. 1,000 from a Vaniyambadi man under threat of a perjury prosecution and received Rs. 750 at his Vaniyambadi house on 4 September 1951 in an arranged trap, besides receiving presents from subordinate officers. A Tribunal found the charges proved and recommended dismissal; the Government instead compulsorily retired him in June 1953, which the High Court quashed. The Court held the High Court under Article 226 could not sit in appeal over Tribunal findings supported by evidence, and restored the 1953 order.
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 9 October 1964 in Civil Appeal No. 400 of 1964, the Supreme Court of India (Coram: P. B. Gajendragadkar, Raghubar Dayal, M. Hidayatullah, K. N. Wanchoo, J. R. Mudholkar, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Inspector of Police, Madras State Police, Vaniyambadi.
- Register number
- TN 83 CW 0004
- Case reference
- Civil Appeal No. 400 of 1964 / AIR 1965 SC 1103
- Court and date
- Supreme Court of India (Coram: P. B. Gajendragadkar, Raghubar Dayal, M. Hidayatullah, K. N. Wanchoo, J. R. Mudholkar, JJ.), 9 October 1964
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Inspector of Police, Madras State Police, Vaniyambadi
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as compulsorily retired.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 10 of the Madras District Police Act, 1859; Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Article 311 of the Constitution of India; the Madras Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1948
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “We are, therefore, of opinion that the High Court was in error in quashing the order of the State Government retiring the respondent compulsorily on the ground that the evidence during the inquiry proceedings by the Tribunal was not sufficient …” (at para 20)
- 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 9 October 1964 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.
“We are, therefore, of opinion that the High Court was in error in quashing the order of the State Government retiring the respondent compulsorily on the ground that the evidence during the inquiry proceedings by the Tribunal was not sufficient …” (para 20)
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.