27 Mar 1998
Order issued
ConcludedThe Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: (1998) 3 AWC 1838
Not yet re-checked.
CW-1998-0002Chandigarh, ChandigarhJudgment 27 March 1998
Chandigarh Administration and Others v. Ex. S.[name withheld]
The Supreme Court restored the dismissal of Chandigarh Sub-Inspector, caught red-handed in uniform on 29 January 1991 accepting a Rs 2,000 bribe at the complainant's residence for releasing gold ornaments and articles retained at the police station. The SSP had dismissed him under Article 311(2)(b) on a DSP's report that he was a terror in the area and witnesses would not depose freely, while a Section 7 PC Act case went to the CBI. Setting aside the Tribunal's reinstatement order, the Court held the dismissal justified, noting the Tribunal had ignored the finality clause in Article 311(3) and that criminal-trial witnesses had indeed turned hostile. 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 27 March 1998 in Civil Appeal No. 2498 of 1997, the Supreme Court of India (Coram: S. C. Agrawal, G. T. Nanavati, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Sub-Inspector, UT Police Chandigarh.
- Register number
- CH 01 CW 0004
- Case reference
- Civil Appeal No. 2498 of 1997 / (1998) 3 AWC 1838
- Court and date
- Supreme Court of India (Coram: S. C. Agrawal, G. T. Nanavati, JJ.), 27 March 1998
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Sub-Inspector, UT Police Chandigarh
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India; Article 311(3) of the Constitution of India
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the disciplinary authority was not justified in holding that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the impugned judgment …” (at para 9)
- 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 27 March 1998 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.
“Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the disciplinary authority was not justified in holding that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the impugned judgment …” (para 9)
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.