11 Mar 2019
Order issued
ConcludedThe Calcutta High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: (2019) 03 CAL CK 0034
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2019-0003South Andaman, Andaman and Nicobar IslandsJudgment 11 March 2019
Nicobar Police Constable vs Union of India and Others
The Calcutta High Court Division Bench dismissed the writ petition of IRB Constable, caught red-handed with three colleagues on 6 October 2012 illegally trading wild water monitor lizards. The Court upheld the major penalty of forfeiture of five years' future increments with cumulative effect for grave misconduct and gross indiscipline, affirming the Commandant, DGP and CAT orders. It held the subsequent criminal acquittal under the Wildlife (Protection) Act had no bearing on the proved departmental charges. The penalty was held not disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. 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 11 March 2019 in WPCT No. 243 of 2018, the Calcutta High Court (Coram: Arijit Banerjee, Amrita Sinha, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Indian Reserve Battalion, Andaman and Nicobar Police.
- Register number
- AN 01 CW 0002
- Case reference
- WPCT No. 243 of 2018 / (2019) 03 CAL CK 0034
- Court and date
- Calcutta High Court (Coram: Arijit Banerjee, Amrita Sinha, JJ.), 11 March 2019
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Indian Reserve Battalion, Andaman and Nicobar Police
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 50 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972; Section 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972; Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “On 06th October, 2012 he along with three other members of the said battalion were caught red handed for indulging in illegal trade of Wild Water Monitor Lizard.”
- 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 Calcutta High Court judgment dated 11 March 2019 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.
“On 06th October, 2012 he along with three other members of the said battalion were caught red handed for indulging in illegal trade of Wild Water Monitor Lizard.”
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.