8 Apr 2011
Order issued
ConcludedThe Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: (2011) 13 SCC 118; AIR 2011 SC 1790
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2011-0027Palamu, BiharJudgment 8 April 2011
Bihar Military Police Constable (under training) v. State of Bihar & Ors.
The appellant, appointed as a constable, absconded from the Commandant Training Centre, BMP-1, Ranchi while under suspension and remained unauthorisedly absent for 105 days; after a departmental inquiry the Superintendent of Police, Palamu ended his service by order dated 14 September 1977, and his departmental appeal to the DIG was dismissed. Years later he claimed pension, contending the order said discharge rather than dismissal. The Supreme Court held the order was in substance a dismissal for misconduct, that discharge is not a punishment known to the Bihar Police Manual, and that as a dismissed employee he was entitled to no pension under Rule 46 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs; this is an internal service-discipline matter with no citizen victim.
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 8 April 2011 in Civil Appeal No. 3131 of 2011, the Supreme Court of India (Coram: Anil R. Dave, Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable (under training), Bihar Military Police.
- Register number
- BR 00 CW 0003
- Case reference
- Civil Appeal No. 3131 of 2011 / (2011) 13 SCC 118; AIR 2011 SC 1790
- Court and date
- Supreme Court of India (Coram: Anil R. Dave, Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.), 8 April 2011
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable (under training), Bihar Military Police
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Rule 46 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950; Rule 107 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “In our opinion, the authorities and the High Court were right in coming to the conclusion that as the appellant was removed from service by way of dismissal on account of his misconduct, the appellant was not entitled to get …” (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 8 April 2011 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.
“In our opinion, the authorities and the High Court were right in coming to the conclusion that as the appellant was removed from service by way of dismissal on account of his misconduct, the appellant was not entitled to get …” (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.