29 Jan 1996
Order issued
ConcludedThe Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: (1996) 7 SCC 748; AIR 1996 SC 3159
Not yet re-checked.
CW-1996-0014PunjabJudgment 29 January 1996
Punjab Police Constable vs State of Punjab and Another
The Supreme Court on 29 January 1996 dismissed constable 's plea for reinstatement into the Punjab Police after his criminal conviction. The Court recorded that he was charged with others under Sections 302/34, 323 and 324 IPC for an assault causing one death and one injury; the High Court set aside the murder and hurt convictions but maintained the Section 323 IPC conviction and released him on probation. The Court held that release on probation under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act does not wipe out the conviction, and that as a member of a disciplined force he was expected to prevent crime rather than participate in it. It found the authorities justified in refusing reinstatement under Rule 16.2(2) of the Punjab Police Rules, converting the penalty of dismissal into removal from service. 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 29 January 1996 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 903 of 1996, the Supreme Court of India (Coram: K. Ramaswamy, G. B. Pattanaik, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Punjab Police.
- Register number
- PB 00 CW 0006
- Case reference
- Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 903 of 1996 / (1996) 7 SCC 748; AIR 1996 SC 3159
- Court and date
- Supreme Court of India (Coram: K. Ramaswamy, G. B. Pattanaik, JJ.), 29 January 1996
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Punjab Police
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as removed from service.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958; Rule 16.2(2) of the Punjab Police Rules
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “In that view, the petitioner being a member of the disciplined police force, the authorities were justified in rejecting his reinstatement. However, we convert the penalty of dismissal into one of removal from service.” (at para 4)
- 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 29 January 1996 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.
“In that view, the petitioner being a member of the disciplined police force, the authorities were justified in rejecting his reinstatement. However, we convert the penalty of dismissal into one of removal from service.” (para 4)
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.