8 Sep 2011
Order issued
ConcludedThe Madras High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: W.P. No.49373 of 2006 (O.A. No.2816 of 2001)
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2011-0037Chennai, Tamil NaduJudgment 8 September 2011
Chennai Resident vs The Additional Director General of Police and Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai
The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. Inspector demanded Rs.10,000 for deleting accused [name withheld]'s name from PEW Cr.No.45/87 and accepted the first instalment of Rs.5,000 on 02.03.1987. He was convicted by the Special Judge, Tirunelveli in S.C. No.1/89 with one year RI and fine per count, and the conviction was confirmed by the High Court in Crl.A. No.25 of 2001. The Commissioner dismissed him from service for an offence involving moral turpitude under PSO 59(1). The Court held that only the sentence, not the conviction, had been suspended on appeal, and dismissed the writ, upholding the dismissal while protecting salary earned under interim orders from recovery.
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 September 2011 in W.P. No.49373 of 2006 (O.A. No.2816 of 2001), the Madras High Court (Coram: K. Chandru, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Greater Chennai Police.
- Register number
- TN 01 CW 0009
- Case reference
- W.P. No.49373 of 2006 (O.A. No.2816 of 2001)
- Court and date
- Madras High Court (Coram: K. Chandru, J.), 8 September 2011
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Greater Chennai Police
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act; Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “Considering the fact that the petitioner got involved in a corruption case which was found proved by the Special Court and confirmed by this Court in the Criminal appeal and the petitioner being a member of the uniformed service he …” (at para 29)
- 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 Madras High Court judgment dated 8 September 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.
“Considering the fact that the petitioner got involved in a corruption case which was found proved by the Special Court and confirmed by this Court in the Criminal appeal and the petitioner being a member of the uniformed service he …” (para 29)
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.