4 Dec 1964
Order issued
ConcludedThe Calcutta High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: AIR 1967 Cal 381
Not yet re-checked.
CW-1964-0005Kolkata, West BengalJudgment 4 December 1964
Calcutta Police Constable v. Commissioner of Police and Others
The judgment of the Calcutta High Court records the following account. Constable was charged with wrongfully detaining a bullion merchant's guard on 2 March 1962, seizing a 234-tola gold bar without authority and without reporting it, and misappropriating 134 tolas of it. The departmental enquiry found the detention/seizure and misappropriation charges proved, and the Deputy Commissioner dismissed him on 14 March 1963, affirmed by the Commissioner of Police in appeal. The court rejected challenges based on the dismissing authority's competence under section 9-B(2) of the Calcutta Police Act, natural justice, identity of the guard, and reliance on admissions. It held there was no substance in the Rule and discharged it, upholding the dismissal. 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 4 December 1964 in Matter No. 463 of 1963, the Calcutta High Court (Coram: Banerjee, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Calcutta Police.
- Register number
- WB 01 CW 0001
- Case reference
- Matter No. 463 of 1963 / AIR 1967 Cal 381
- Court and date
- Calcutta High Court (Coram: Banerjee, J.), 4 December 1964
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Calcutta Police
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 9-B(2) of the Calcutta Police Act, 1898; Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “Further apart from the admission, evidence was led to prove the charges against the petitioner. That evidence appealed to the disciplinary authority. Therefore, even though the admission, said to have been made by the petitioner, was treated as supporting the …” (at para 7)
- 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 December 1964 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.
“Further apart from the admission, evidence was led to prove the charges against the petitioner. That evidence appealed to the disciplinary authority. Therefore, even though the admission, said to have been made by the petitioner, was treated as supporting the …” (para 7)
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.