26 Mar 1996
Order issued
ConcludedThe Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: Civil Appeal No. 6954 of 1996
Not yet re-checked.
CW-1996-0001Chandigarh, ChandigarhJudgment 26 March 1996
Chandigarh Administration, UT Chandigarh and Others v. [name withheld]
The Supreme Court restored the dismissal of Sub-Inspector of Police Station Sector-11, Chandigarh, who had extorted Rs 50,000 from fake-passport accused [name withheld] and demanded Rs 50,000 more with threats. The DSP (Central)'s March 1994 report affirmed the complaint and recorded that witnesses were terrorised and unwilling to pursue the matter in court, leading the SSP to dismiss him under Article 311(2)(b). Setting aside the Tribunal's order for [name withheld], the Court dismissed the appeal concerning co-respondent SI, whose minor charge lacked material showing intimidation.
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 1996 in Civil Appeal No. 6954 of 1996, the Supreme Court of India (Coram: K. S. Paripoornan, B. P. Jeevan Reddy, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Sub-Inspector, PS Sector-11, Chandigarh.
- Register number
- CH 01 CW 0001
- Case reference
- Civil Appeal No. 6954 of 1996
- Court and date
- Supreme Court of India (Coram: K. S. Paripoornan, B. P. Jeevan Reddy, JJ.), 26 March 1996
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Sub-Inspector, PS Sector-11, Chandigarh
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India; Article 311(3) of the Constitution of India
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “The order read as a whole and the accompanying report of the D.S.P. and the endorsement of S.S.P. on the report do clearly establish that it was respondent who was intimidating and terrorising the said persons. The judgment and order …” (at para 14)
- 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 1996 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 order read as a whole and the accompanying report of the D.S.P. and the endorsement of S.S.P. on the report do clearly establish that it was respondent who was intimidating and terrorising the said persons. The judgment and order …” (para 14)
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.