5 Sep 2011
Order issued
ConcludedThe Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: [2011] 11 SCR 136
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2011-0036Prayagraj, Uttar PradeshJudgment 5 September 2011
Prayagraj Police Constable v. State of U.P. & Ors.
The appellant, a constable in the IV Battalion, Provincial Armed Constabulary, Allahabad, was unauthorisedly absent on 27 October 1991 and that evening forcibly grabbed a liquor bottle from a wine shop and threatened the staff; medical examination found he had consumed alcohol though he was not intoxicated. A departmental inquiry held the charges proved and he was dismissed on 11 February 1993; the departmental appeal, the U.P. Public Services Tribunal and the Allahabad High Court all upheld the dismissal, though he was acquitted in the linked criminal case under Section 392 IPC. The Supreme Court held the criminal acquittal had no bearing on the departmental proceedings given the different standards of proof, and that dismissal of a member of a disciplined force found under the influence of liquor was not shocking to the conscience. The appeal was dismissed with parties bearing their own costs.
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 5 September 2011 in Civil Appeal No. 7643 of 2011, the Supreme Court of India (Coram: Mukundakam Sharma, Anil R. Dave, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, IV Battalion, Provincial Armed Constabulary, Allahabad.
- Register number
- UP 70 CW 0001
- Case reference
- Civil Appeal No. 7643 of 2011 / [2011] 11 SCR 136
- Court and date
- Supreme Court of India (Coram: Mukundakam Sharma, Anil R. Dave, JJ.), 5 September 2011
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, IV Battalion, Provincial Armed Constabulary, Allahabad
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “The appellant belongs to a disciplinary force and the members of such a force is required to maintain discipline and to act in a befitting manner in public. Instead of that, he was found under the influence of liquor and …” (at para 12)
- 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 5 September 2011 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.
“The appellant belongs to a disciplinary force and the members of such a force is required to maintain discipline and to act in a befitting manner in public. Instead of that, he was found under the influence of liquor and …” (para 12)
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.