10 Mar 1965
Order issued
ConcludedThe Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: (1965) 03 P&H CK 0019
Not yet re-checked.
CW-1965-0001Karnal, HaryanaJudgment 10 March 1965
Assandh Police Sub-Inspector and others vs The State of Punjab and Others
The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court records the following account. Sub-Inspector [name withheld], SHO of Police Station Assandh, was alleged to have beaten an Assandh man, confined him in the police station on the night of 22-23 July 1959, and accepted a Rs 300 bribe from him after recovering opium from an Assandh man's brother [name withheld]. After a Vigilance examination, a departmental enquiry initially found the allegations not proved, but the DIG called for the record, held the bribery charge proved, and dismissed him on 28 October 1961, and his appeal was rejected on 10 September 1963. The High Court repelled challenges on Rule 16.38 compliance, the DIG's competence under Rule 16.28, bias, and pre-enquiry association, holding there was no jurisdictional error in the dismissal order. It dismissed the writ petition with no order as to costs, leaving the bribery dismissal intact. 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 10 March 1965 in Civil Writ No. 1913 of 1963, the Punjab and Haryana High Court (Coram: Shamsher Bahadur, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Sub-Inspector, SHO, Police Station Assandh.
- Register number
- HR 05 CW 0001
- Case reference
- Civil Writ No. 1913 of 1963 / (1965) 03 P&H CK 0019
- Court and date
- Punjab and Haryana High Court (Coram: Shamsher Bahadur, J.), 10 March 1965
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Sub-Inspector, SHO, Police Station Assandh
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Article 227 of the Constitution of India; Rule 16.38(2) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934; Rule 16.28(1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “All that is required is that the petitioner should be given an adequate opportunity at the time of enquiry and when he is to be removed from service. At both stages the petitioner was asked to furnish his explanations which …” (at para 9-10)
- 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 Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment dated 10 March 1965 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 is required is that the petitioner should be given an adequate opportunity at the time of enquiry and when he is to be removed from service. At both stages the petitioner was asked to furnish his explanations which …” (para 9-10)
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.