Page No.# 1/4 GAHC020006742024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/253/2024 SHRI TOKHUVI SHEQI S/O ISHIKHU, R/O PUGHOBOTO VILLAGE, P.S. PUGHOBOTO, DIST-ZUNHEBOTO, NAGALAND VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BYTHE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND, NAGALAND,KOHIMA 2:THE HOME COMMISSIONER TO THEGOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND DEPARTMENT OF HOME NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:THE COMMISSIONER NAGALAND KOHIMA 4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (HQ) KOHIMA NAGALAN Advocate for the Petitioner : JOSHUA SHEQI, RUBICA KIHO,TUNATO YEPTHO,R WONCHIBENI TSANGLO,KIVITOLI SWU,YEKA SUMI,KEVI KIRE,KETHO SEKHOSE,K LILY SWU,KEDI KOSO,P MHONBENI EZUNG,MIKA H AYE,CHINGMEI KONYAK,NAGALI SHOHE Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 20.11.2025 1. Heard Ms. Mika H. Aye, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. S. Mere, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed impugning the Speaking Order dated 26.10.2022, passed by the Commissioner, Nagaland, Kohima, imposing the penalty of removal of the petitioner from service as Handyman in the Office of the Commissioner, Nagaland, Kohima, with immediate effect, as provided under Sub-Rule (viii) of Rule 7 of the Nagaland Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1967 and the Letter dated 02.09.2023, issued by the Deputy Commissioner (HQ), Office of the Commissioner, Nagaland, Kohima, rejecting the request of the petitioner for revocation of the termination of the service of the petitioner effected vide Order dated 26.10.2022. 3. The petitioner’s case is that a Memorandum of Charge dated 04.03.2022 was issued to the petitioner, whereby 2 Article of Charges had been framed against him, regarding stealing a Government vehicle bearing Registration No. NL10-4941, due to which he was charged of violating Rule 4(1)(i)(ii) & (iii) of the Nagaland Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1968. The same was done as the Government proposed to hold an inquiry against the Page No.# 3/4 petitioner under Rule 9(2) of the Nagaland Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1967. The petitioner was also asked to submit his written statement of defence. 4. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence, admitting to the charge of stealing the Government vehicle and prayed for leniency. Besides the departmental proceeding that was initiated against the petitioner, a Criminal Case was registered against the petitioner under Kohima South Police Station Case No.29/2018 under Section 379/34 of IPC. The Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Kohima, thereafter summoned the petitioner for consideration of charge on 25.01.2022, as a charge- sheet under Section 379/34 of IPC read with Section 7 of the National Security Regulation (NSR), 1962 had been framed against the petitioner. The petitioner pleaded guilty at the time of consideration of charge and submitted an application for probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C read with Section 3 & 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, praying for release of the petitioner on a bond of good conduct, as a first time offender. Instead of releasing the petitioner on a bond of good conduct, the JMFC, Kohima, imposed a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 (one) month in GR Case No.120/2018. 5. Though the petitioner filed an appeal before the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Kohima, Nagaland, vide Criminal Appeal No.1/2022, the same was dismissed and the Appellate Court upheld the judgment of the JMFC, Kohima, vide judgment dated 28.02.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Page No.# 4/4 No.1/2022, which was disposed of, vide judgment and order dated 23.05.2023, by setting aside and quashing the judgments of the JMFC, Kohima and the First Appellate Court. G.R. Case No.120/2018 was remitted back to the Court of the JMFC, Kohima with a direction to pass an appropriate order under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 against the petitioner, as the Revision Court (High Court) held that the JMFC, Kohima had erred in imposing a sentence of Rs.3,000/-, by not taking recourse to Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 6. The above clearly goes to show that the petitioner admitted to the charge in the departmental proceeding initiated against him. Further, the criminal case had also ended in the conviction of the appellant, wherein the petitioner was only to be given probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 7. In view of the reasons stated above, there is no reason/ground to interfere with the impugned Speaking Order dated 26.10.2022, passed by the Commissioner, Nagaland, Kohima and the Letter dated 02.09.2023, issued by the Deputy Commissioner (HQ), Office of the Commissioner, Nagaland, Kohima. Further, it is settled law that a penalty can only be interfered with, if it shocks the conscience of the Court. However, the same is not attracted in this case. 8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant