28 Nov 2013
Order issued
ConcludedThe Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: (2014) 3 SCC 610; AIR 2014 SC 405
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2013-0017North 24 Parganas, West BengalJudgment 28 November 2013
State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Kolkata Armed Police Sepoy
Sepoy (2nd Battalion KAP, on deputation to Kolkata Traffic Police) was arrested on 26 November 2003 for complicity in a dacoity (Khardah PS Case 383, Sections 392/395/412 IPC and Arms Act), suspended and dismissed after a departmental enquiry found gross misconduct. Though acquitted by the Sessions Court, Barrackpore, he won reinstatement from the WB Administrative Tribunal, affirmed by the Calcutta High Court. The Supreme Court held under the Police Regulations of Calcutta 1968 that criminal acquittal is no bar to departmental punishment, allowed the State's appeal and set aside the reinstatement.
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 28 November 2013 in Civil Appeal No. 10729 of 2013, the Supreme Court of India (Coram: K.S. Radhakrishnan, A.K. Sikri, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Sepoy, 2nd Battalion, Kolkata Armed Police.
- Register number
- WB 21 CW 0003
- Case reference
- Civil Appeal No. 10729 of 2013 / (2014) 3 SCC 610; AIR 2014 SC 405
- Court and date
- Supreme Court of India (Coram: K.S. Radhakrishnan, A.K. Sikri, JJ.), 28 November 2013
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Sepoy, 2nd Battalion, Kolkata Armed Police
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959; Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “The Tribunal as well as the High Court have not considered the above-mentioned provision and have committed a mistake in holding that since the respondent was acquitted by a Criminal Court of the same charges, reinstatement was automatic. We find …” (at para 18)
- 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 28 November 2013 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 Tribunal as well as the High Court have not considered the above-mentioned provision and have committed a mistake in holding that since the respondent was acquitted by a Criminal Court of the same charges, reinstatement was automatic. We find …” (para 18)
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.