9 Mar 2005
Order issued
ConcludedThe Bombay High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: (2005) 4 BomCR 67
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2005-0011MaharashtraJudgment 9 March 2005
State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs Navi Mumbai Police Police Constable
Police Constable was dismissed from service on 13.05.1999 after a departmental enquiry (June-October 1998), but the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal set aside the dismissal as without authority of law. The State's writ petition relied on a later MAT Full Bench holding that enquiry powers under the Bombay Police (Punishment and Appeals) Rules 1956 subsist. The court set aside the MAT order, declined to interfere with the punishment noting [name withheld]'s subsequent 569-day unauthorised absence, and protected wages paid since reinstatement. 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 9 March 2005 in Writ Petition No. 4622 of 2003, the Bombay High Court (Coram: F.I. Rebello, S.P. Kukday, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Police Constable, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai.
- Register number
- MH 00 CW 0001
- Case reference
- Writ Petition No. 4622 of 2003 / (2005) 4 BomCR 67
- Court and date
- Bombay High Court (Coram: F.I. Rebello, S.P. Kukday, JJ.), 9 March 2005
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Police Constable, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as dismissed from service.
- Provisions invoked
- the Bombay Police Act, 1951; the Bombay Police (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1956
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “That being the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the punishment imposed.” (at para 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 Bombay High Court judgment dated 9 March 2005 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.
“That being the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the punishment imposed.” (para 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.