Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010204662025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/295/2025 MANABJYOTI SAIKIA S/O DHRUBA SAIKIA, R/O BOKUL MAH GAON, P.O. AND P.S. LAHOWAL, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECY., HOME AND POLITICAL DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY 06 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (HQ) ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI 07 3:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE SB ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 19 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CUM DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY SB (E) ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 19 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE WEST KARBI ANGLONG HEMREN ASSAM Page No.# 2/4 For the appellant : Mr. M. Khan, Advocate For the respondents : Ms. S. Sarma, Govt. Advocate, Assam – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 25-09-2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.) Heard Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. S. Sarma, learned Government Advocate, Assam for the respondents. By the impugned judgment, the punishment of removal of the appellant from service in a disciplinary proceeding has been sustained. The appellant while serving as Sub-Inspector of Police under probation was subjected to a criminal prosecution for having illegally collected money from the informant of the criminal case along with his staff, leading to his arrest. Later, he was released on bail. However, because of the criminal case lodged against him and his custody for a brief period, he was put under suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding against him. The appellant was served with a charge-memo containing three allegations; all pertaining to his conduct while discharging his duties on 31.05.2023 when he is said to have demanded money illegally from the informant of the criminal case. A show-cause notice was issued to him before that, to which he had replied, but his reply was not found to be satisfactory. In the departmental proceeding, 11 witnesses were examined, all of whom Page No.# 3/4 supported the allegation levelled against the appellant. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority slapped him with the punishment of removal from service. The statutory appeal against that order also stood dismissed. The appellant preferred a writ petition seeking annulment of the decision of the disciplinary authority on the ground that in the criminal case, which was lodged against him and which was the basis for initiating and concluding the departmental proceeding against him, he was discharged. The allegations were identical and therefore, in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat & another, (2006) 4 SCC 740 and Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan & ors, (2024) 1 SCC 175, the decision of the disciplinary authority required a re-look. The learned Single Judge, after having examined the records in detail, found that all the allegations against the appellant were proved to the hilt. With respect to the contention of the appellant that the criminal case and the departmental proceeding were based on the same set of facts, the leaned Single Judge rightly took the view that the charge-memo was not identical and similar to the criminal case lodged against him and that the decision of the Supreme Court in G.M. Tank (supra) and Ram Lal (supra) would not have any application to the facts of this case. The reason given by the learned Single Judge is that the appellant was discharged from the criminal case at the primary stage of framing of charge, where decision is taken on a prima facie assessment of the case against the accused and in the event of insufficient evidence on record to proceed against the accused in trial, the discharge order is passed. This happened in the case of the appellant as well. This fact situation was pitted against the examination of 11 witnesses in Page No.# 4/4 the departmental proceeding, all of whom supported the accusation against the appellant. We are in complete agreement with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and find no reason to interfere with the same. The appeal has no merits and the same is dismissed accordingly. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant