20 Jun 2018
Order issued
ConcludedThe Madras High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: W.P. No.9589 of 2015
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2018-0024Tamil NaduJudgment 20 June 2018
[name withheld] vs The Deputy Inspector General of Police and Another
conviction was not 'in 2001' — 2001 is trap/suspension year (para 3-4); conviction pre-dates May-2008 show-cause with Crl. appeal C.A.No.343/2008 (paras 5-6), confirmed with SLP rejected 21.08.2012 (para 7)
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 20 June 2018 in W.P. No.9589 of 2015, the Madras High Court (Coram: V. Parthiban, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Sub-Inspector of Police, Trichy Range, Tamil Nadu Police.
- Register number
- TN 00 CW 0003
- Case reference
- W.P. No.9589 of 2015
- Court and date
- Madras High Court (Coram: V. Parthiban, J.), 20 June 2018
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Sub-Inspector of Police, Trichy Range, Tamil Nadu Police
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “Since this Court is of the considered view that the proved corruption cannot be condoned under any circumstances and therefore dismissal order cannot even be remotely held to be disproportionate.” (at para 14)
- 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 20 June 2018 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.
“Since this Court is of the considered view that the proved corruption cannot be condoned under any circumstances and therefore dismissal order cannot even be remotely held to be disproportionate.” (para 14)
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.