28 Jun 2010
Order issued
ConcludedThe Madras High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: W.P. No.1811 of 2006
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2010-0030Tirupattur, Tamil NaduJudgment 28 June 2010
[name withheld] vs The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range and Another
The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. Grade-II Constable of Tirupattur Town Police Station challenged his dismissal and the rejection of his reinstatement plea following his conviction for concealing sandalwood in a 1991 forest offence. The court found that the conviction under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act stood confirmed through appeal and revision, with only the sentence of imprisonment set aside in favour of release on probation. The court held that the department was entitled to remove a convicted constable and, applying Trikha Ram, treated the dismissal as a removal so as not to disqualify him from future employment. The writ petition was dismissed with no costs. 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 28 June 2010 in W.P. No.1811 of 2006, the Madras High Court (Coram: N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Grade-II Police Constable, Tirupattur Town Police Station.
- Register number
- TN 83 CW 0002
- Case reference
- W.P. No.1811 of 2006
- Court and date
- Madras High Court (Coram: N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.), 28 June 2010
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Grade-II Police Constable, Tirupattur Town Police Station
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 36(E) of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882; Rule 3(1) of the TN Sandalwood Possession Rules, 1970; Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958; Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958; Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “Here, the conviction imposed against the petitioner is not set aside and the leniency was shown to the petitioner only in respect of sentence after noticing the fact of dismissal of the petitioner from his service.” (at para 8)
- 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 Madras High Court judgment dated 28 June 2010 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.
“Here, the conviction imposed against the petitioner is not set aside and the leniency was shown to the petitioner only in respect of sentence after noticing the fact of dismissal of the petitioner from his service.” (para 8)
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.