5 Feb 1954
Order issued
ConcludedThe Calcutta High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: AIR 1955 Cal 183
Not yet re-checked.
CW-1954-0004Howrah, West BengalJudgment 5 February 1954
Shalimar Police Sub-Inspector v. State of West Bengal and Others
Sub-Inspector, officer-in-charge of Shalimar GRPS from December 1948, faced seven charges of misappropriation in malkhana goods sales during 1948-1950 following anonymous complaints, CID investigation and a DSP enquiry, and was dismissed on 21 August 1952. The court held that departmental findings honestly and impartially reached on circumstantial evidence were unexceptionable. It found no violation of Articles 311 or 320(3)(c), held the section 42 Police Act limitation inapplicable to departmental enquiries, and held the enquiry officer's dual role did not vitiate the findings. The application failed, the Rule was discharged and all interim orders vacated. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.
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 5 February 1954 in Civil Rule challenging dismissal order dated 21-8-1952, the Calcutta High Court (Coram: Sinha, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Sub-Inspector, Shalimar Government Railway Police Station, Howrah.
- Register number
- WB 11 CW 0001
- Case reference
- Civil Rule challenging dismissal order dated 21-8-1952 / AIR 1955 Cal 183
- Court and date
- Calcutta High Court (Coram: Sinha, J.), 5 February 1954
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Sub-Inspector, Shalimar Government Railway Police Station, Howrah
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861; Section 35 of the Police Act, 1861; Section 42 of the Police Act, 1861; Article 311 of the Constitution of India; Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution of India
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “All that has to be seen is as to whether he had honestly and impartially come to a conclusion which a reasonable man could arrive at. Judged by this test I find no error on the face of his findings.” (at para 19)
- 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 5 February 1954 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.
“All that has to be seen is as to whether he had honestly and impartially come to a conclusion which a reasonable man could arrive at. Judged by this test I find no error on the face of his findings.” (para 19)
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.