26 Mar 1976
Order issued
ConcludedThe Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: AIR 1976 SC 1080; (1976) 3 SCC 76
Not yet re-checked.
CW-1976-0003Belagavi, KarnatakaJudgment 26 March 1976
Mysore State Police Police Constable vs State of Mysore
The Supreme Court on 26 March 1976 dismissed constable 's appeal, sustaining his dismissal from the Mysore (now Karnataka) police for complicity in bootlegging. The Court found that fellow constables' statements implicated him with six others in smuggling illicit liquor linked to a 1960 seizure at Khade-bazar police station, Belgaum, and that the Superintendent of Police had disagreed with the enquiry officer's lenient recommendation to impose dismissal. It held that reasonable opportunity under Article 311 was satisfied and that courts cannot reweigh evidence in domestic enquiries, which do not require criminal standards of proof. The dismissal stands with no compensation. 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 26 March 1976 in Civil Appeal No. 847 of 1974, the Supreme Court of India (Coram: A. N. Ray, M. H. Beg, Jaswant Singh, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Police Constable, Khade-bazar Police Station, Belgaum, Mysore State Police.
- Register number
- KA 22 CW 0001
- Case reference
- Civil Appeal No. 847 of 1974 / AIR 1976 SC 1080; (1976) 3 SCC 76
- Court and date
- Supreme Court of India (Coram: A. N. Ray, M. H. Beg, Jaswant Singh, JJ.), 26 March 1976
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Police Constable, Khade-bazar Police Station, Belgaum, Mysore State Police
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any force in the contention of counsel for the appellant that there was no evidence on the record which could justify the appellant's dismissal from service.” (at para n/a)
- 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 26 March 1976 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.
“For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any force in the contention of counsel for the appellant that there was no evidence on the record which could justify the appellant's dismissal from service.” (para n/a)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
Continuing record
Follow-up history
Not yet re-checked.
No published follow-up check has been recorded for this incident.
Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.
Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.