Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010232812017 2020:GAU-AS:10922 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/861/2017 JAMAL ALI S/O LT. KAMEL ALI VILL- KAIBATRA GAON R/O RAJABARI, P.S. DEMOW DIST. SIVASAGAR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM and 4 ORS. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME DEPARTMENT,D ISPUR, GUWAHATI -6. 2:THE ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE PROSE ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI PIN - 781007. 3:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE A ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI - 781007. 4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ER ASSAM JORHAT PIN - 785001. 5:THE E.O. SRI DEBASHISH SHARMA APS ADDL. S.P. S SIVASAGAR Page No.# 2/6 PIN - 785640 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.F BEGUM, MR. S A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 02.06.2026 Heard Mr S A Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms U Sharma, learned Government Advocate, Assam. 2. By this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for setting aside of the order dated 24.12.2015, by which the petitioner was dismissed from his service. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in his service forthwith and regularize his service as well. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed to the post of Constable in the year 2010 and was posted in the said capacity at Sivasagar, District Executive Force (DEF), and that since then, he has been working as a Constable. Thereafter, a case was registered against the petitioner as Simoluguri PS Case No. 30/2014, under Sections 389/387/506/34 of the IPC. The said case was registered on the basis of a complaint made by one Jainuddin Ahmed, on 14.03.2014, stating, inter alia, that he, i.e., the complainant was an employee of ONGC Private Limited and while he was on his way to Sivasagar from Simoluguri, he saw a vehicle and requested the driver of the said vehicle Page No.# 3/6 to take him to Sivasagar Town and while he was coming in the said vehicle he got senseless and he gained his sense in his house, and found two men, who had pointed him a pistol and demanded Rs. 1 lac from him by threatening him that they would publish his naked photograph with a woman. Due to the threat given, the complainant gave Rs. 1 lac and subsequently also, he gave more money and then, even more money was demanded from him. On the basis of the said FIR, a criminal case was registered. 4. Apart from the aforesaid case, another case was also registered against the petitioner and others, which was registered as Sivasagar PS Case No. 413/2012, under Sections 294 and 387, read with Section 34 of the IPC. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who was implicated in the said two cases, was acquitted by the Criminal Court. By Judgment and Order dated 18.09.2014 and 14.11.2018, it is seen that the first case was disposed of by the said judgment and the petitioner was acquitted along with others on benefit of doubt, and the second case was also disposed of on the ground that no incriminating material is brought against the accused persons and as such, the petitioner along with others were acquitted. 6. On the other hand, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice on the charges of serious misconduct, dereliction of duty and moral turpitude, and thereafter, a show cause notice was issued against the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner filed his reply to the second show cause notice, wherein, he had raised a plea that the Page No.# 4/6 complainant had complained about the alleged fact, one year later from the date of occurrence. He had also taken other grounds in his defence. The petitioner was also put under suspension on 09.07.2013, based on another complaint. The enquiry was conducted against the petitioner where he had participated, and in conclusion thereof, the Superintendent of Police, Sivasagar, Assam, passed the order dated 14.12.2015, by which it was observed that a Police Officer must not resort to such acts, which may encourage or abet anti-social elements and criminals, directly and indirectly. It was also stated that the petitioner had admitted his presence at the place of occurrence to help the criminals when a crime was being committed and involved himself. It is further stated that if a Police Officer sees any crime being committed, he should immediately inform the Police personnel about the crime and get the criminals apprehended, but the petitioner instead of informing about the crime, demanded money from the victim, which was a serious misconduct on the part of the petitioner. 7. During the enquiry proceeding, the statements of witnesses were recorded and it was found that the petitioner had abeted a gang of anti-socials in the crime, and further that, the petitioner could not produce any witness, documents or evidence to prove his innocence. On the said grounds, the petitioner was dismissed from service 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being acquitted in the criminal cases, should not have been punished in the departmental proceeding. He also submitted that the petitioner had filed an appeal before the appellate authority, i.e., Page No.# 5/6 the Deputy Inspector General of Police and the appellate authority, without any discussion on the issue, had agreed with the conclusion of the disciplinary authority and upheld the order of the Superintendent of Police, Sivasagar. 9. Ms U Sharma, learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioner had himself admitted his guilt before the Enquiry Officer and that the punishment inflicted upon him is proportionate to the misconduct he did. 10. It is noticed that in the criminal cases which are on the same facts and offence, to which the petitioner was subjected to, in a disciplinary proceeding, ended in acquittal of the petitioner, along with others. It is also reflected that there were no incriminating materials ofnd against the petitioner and others with regard to the said offences, but it is also seen that the petitioner was not honourably acquitted in the said cases. In the said criminal cases, the petitioner and others were given the benefit of doubt, and were acquitted. At the same time, the dismissal order of the petitioner pursuant to the departmental proceeding also seems to be harsh. It is stated in the impugned order that the petitioner had abated the crime committed by others and that it is also in the evidence of a witness that he had actively abeted a gang of anti-socials in the commission of the crime. Further it is also seen in the appellate authority’s order that although it is written therein that consultation was done and after the same, conclusion of the Superintendent of Police was upheld, but the same does not seem to be a reasoned and detailed order. Page No.# 6/6 11. In view of the said findings of the disciplinary authority as well as the acquittal order by the criminal Court, this Court deems it fit that the petitioner would prefer an appeal before the office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eastern Range, Assam, Jorhat, who would consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the observations made above. As such, the order dated 22nd of June, 2016, passed by the appellate authority is set aside. Further, it is directed that the appeal may be disposed of within a reasonable period of time by the appellate authority. 12. Writ petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant