29 May 1969
Order issued
ConcludedThe Calcutta High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: AIR 1970 Cal 384
Not yet re-checked.
CW-1969-0002South 24 Parganas, West BengalJudgment 29 May 1969
West Bengal Police Sub-Inspector v. State of West Bengal and Others
Sub-Inspector, District Enforcement Officer of 24 Parganas, refused to comply with a December 1959 transfer order to Nadia, was convicted under section 29 of the Police Act by the Alipore Magistrate on 25 November 1961 (fine Rs 100), and his appeal and revision failed. The SP 24 Parganas recommended dismissal, effected on 2 July 1964 with DIG approval. The court held a section 29 conviction is a conviction on a criminal charge under proviso (a) to Article 311(2), so no inquiry was needed before dismissal. The Rule was made absolute only to the extent of granting full emoluments for the pre-dismissal period 2 January 1960 to 2 July 1964. 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 29 May 1969 in Civil Rule No. 1305(W) of 1965, the Calcutta High Court (Coram: D. Basu, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Sub-Inspector, West Bengal Police, 24 Parganas.
- Register number
- WB 19 CW 0001
- Case reference
- Civil Rule No. 1305(W) of 1965 / AIR 1970 Cal 384
- Court and date
- Calcutta High Court (Coram: D. Basu, J.), 29 May 1969
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Sub-Inspector, West Bengal Police, 24 Parganas
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 29 of the Police Act, 1861; Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “Consequently, the instant case would fall under the purview of Proviso (a) to Article 311(2) of the Constitution.” (at para 19)
- 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 Calcutta High Court judgment dated 29 May 1969 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.
“Consequently, the instant case would fall under the purview of Proviso (a) to Article 311(2) of the Constitution.” (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.