8 Apr 2014
Order issued
ConcludedThe Calcutta High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: (2014) 4 CHN 487; (2014) 04 CAL CK 0026
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2014-0026Kolkata, West BengalJudgment 8 April 2014
Kolkata Police Constable (Traffic) v. State of West Bengal
The judgment of the Calcutta High Court records the following account. Kolkata Police traffic constable absented himself from 4 May 2005 after medical rest only until 6 May 2005, sending no intimation and evading examination by the Kolkata Police doctor while producing a private angina certificate from a consulting obstetrician and gynaecologist. An ex-parte enquiry led to his dismissal on 12 June 2007, affirmed in appeal and review and by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal. The Calcutta High Court disbelieved the medical defence and stressed his eight prior punishments for similar misconduct. The writ petition was dismissed on 8 April 2014 with no order as to 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 8 April 2014 in W.P.S.T. No. 143 of 2013, the Calcutta High Court (Coram: Nishita Mhatre, Tapash Mookherjee, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable (Traffic), Kolkata Police.
- Register number
- WB 01 CW 0006
- Case reference
- W.P.S.T. No. 143 of 2013 / (2014) 4 CHN 487; (2014) 04 CAL CK 0026
- Court and date
- Calcutta High Court (Coram: Nishita Mhatre, Tapash Mookherjee, JJ.), 8 April 2014
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable (Traffic), Kolkata Police
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Not stated in the cited sources
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “Considering the entire material on record, in our opinion, the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy, especially since he has been punished on eight occasions earlier for the similar acts of misconduct.” (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 Calcutta High Court judgment dated 8 April 2014 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.
“Considering the entire material on record, in our opinion, the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy, especially since he has been punished on eight occasions earlier for the similar acts of misconduct.” (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.