3 Aug 2016
Order issued
ConcludedThe Calcutta High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: 2016 SCC OnLine Cal 4259
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2016-0004Uttar Dinajpur, West BengalJudgment 3 August 2016
State of West Bengal & Ors. v. State Armed Police Constable
State Armed Police constable, posted at Raiganj, was accused in Raiganj PS Case 383/2007 (Sections 419/420/120-B IPC) over impersonation to procure constable employment, and was dismissed in January 2012 after a departmental enquiry for tarnishing the police image. Though honourably acquitted in the criminal trial, the Division Bench followed State of WB v. [name withheld] and held there is no provision under the Police Regulations to reinstate an employee acquitted of a criminal charge. The State's petition was allowed and the Tribunal's reinstatement order quashed. 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 3 August 2016 in WPST No. 20 of 2016, the Calcutta High Court (Coram: Nishita Mhatre, Rakesh Tiwari, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, State Armed Police, West Bengal.
- Register number
- WB 59 CW 0002
- Case reference
- WPST No. 20 of 2016 / 2016 SCC OnLine Cal 4259
- Court and date
- Calcutta High Court (Coram: Nishita Mhatre, Rakesh Tiwari, JJ.), 3 August 2016
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, State Armed Police, West Bengal
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “However, there is no provision under the Police Regulations to reinstate an employee who has been acquitted of a criminal charge. We do not, therefore, find that the Tribunal was correct, in allowing the original application.” (at para 23)
- 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 3 August 2016 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.
“However, there is no provision under the Police Regulations to reinstate an employee who has been acquitted of a criminal charge. We do not, therefore, find that the Tribunal was correct, in allowing the original application.” (para 23)
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.