4 Nov 2015
Order issued
ConcludedThe Madras High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: W.P. No.3799 of 2012
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2015-0034Kanchipuram, Tamil NaduJudgment 4 November 2015
[name withheld] vs The National Human Rights Commission and Others
The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. Police officer challenged G.O.Ms. Nos.113, 220 and 436 of 2011 and the SP Kancheepuram memo dated 17.06.2011 directing recovery from him following NHRC proceedings over a custodial death. The Division Bench recorded that Rs.50,000 each had already been recovered from five other personnel and that the RDO Madurantakam had filed a criminal case against the police personnel (C.M.P. No.3809/2015, JM Madurantakam) which was pending trial. The court held the authorities entitled to recover the amount from the petitioner since the NHRC order was never challenged, observing refund could be considered only on acquittal. The writ petition was dismissed; the order does not name the deceased, the other personnel, or the petitioner's rank. 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 4 November 2015 in W.P. No.3799 of 2012, the Madras High Court (Coram: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Police personnel, Kancheepuram District Police.
- Register number
- TN 21 CW 0002
- Case reference
- W.P. No.3799 of 2012
- Court and date
- Madras High Court (Coram: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JJ.), 4 November 2015
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Police personnel, Kancheepuram District Police
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “In so far as recovery process is concerned, the aforesaid fact would show that the respondent authorities are entitled to recover the amount, as no challenge has been laid to the order passed by the National Human Rights Commission.” (at para 5)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Disciplinary action upheld.
- 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 4 November 2015 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.
Evidence position
Recorded allegations
Custodial deathPrimary
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.
“In so far as recovery process is concerned, the aforesaid fact would show that the respondent authorities are entitled to recover the amount, as no challenge has been laid to the order passed by the National Human Rights Commission.” (para 5)
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.