4 Jul 1996
Order issued
ConcludedThe Calcutta High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: (1998) 1 DMC 450
Not yet re-checked.
CW-1996-0015Cooch Behar, West BengalJudgment 4 July 1996
Cooch Behar Police Constable v. State of West Bengal and Others
Constable of DAP Cooch Behar was charge-sheeted on 22 April 1980 for contracting a second marriage during his first wife's lifetime, and dismissed from service on 30 April 1981. In his written defence he stated he had remarried with his first wife's written consent, which the court treated as an admission of the charge. The Division Bench held the admitted bigamy was both an offence under section 494 IPC and misconduct, that a fact admitted need not be proved, and that wrong mentioning of the conduct rule caused no prejudice. It dismissed the appeal against the Single Judge's rejection of his writ, leaving the dismissal intact.
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 4 July 1996 in Appeal No. 1136 of 1990 (arising from C.R. No. 3878(W) of 1983), the Calcutta High Court (Coram: Satyabrata Sinha, Satya Narayan Chakraborty, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, DAP, Cooch Behar.
- Register number
- WB 63 CW 0001
- Case reference
- Appeal No. 1136 of 1990 (arising from C.R. No. 3878(W) of 1983) / (1998) 1 DMC 450
- Court and date
- Calcutta High Court (Coram: Satyabrata Sinha, Satya Narayan Chakraborty, JJ.), 4 July 1996
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, DAP, Cooch Behar
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as dismissed from service.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Rule 30 of the WB Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1959; Rule 5(4) of the WB Government Services (Duties, Rights and Obligations) Rules, 1980
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “As noticed hereinbefore, the appellant in his written statement categorically admitted the misconduct committed by him. His only defence was that he married Smt. Sefali De Chowdhury with the written consent of his first wife. It is not in dispute …” (at para 9)
- 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 4 July 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.
“As noticed hereinbefore, the appellant in his written statement categorically admitted the misconduct committed by him. His only defence was that he married Smt. Sefali De Chowdhury with the written consent of his first wife. It is not in dispute …” (para 9)
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.