Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010025522025 2025:GAU-AS:9408 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/172/2025 MIACHAND ALI S/O- LATE MAFIL UDDIN, R/O- DAHALPARA, SANTI PATH, P.O. AND P.S. FATASIL AMBARI, GUWAHATI- 781025, DIST.- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF ASSAM THROUGH- THE SECRETARY, HOME AND POLITICAL (A) DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-06. 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ASSAM, ULUBAR,I GHY-07. 3:THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CID, ASSAM ULUBARI GHY-07. 4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CID, ASSAM, ULUBARI, GHY-07. 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CID, ASSAM, ULUBARI, GHY- For the Appellant(s) : Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. A.K. Hussain and Mr. B. Hussain, Advocates. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Baruah, Government Advocate, Assam. – BEFORE – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA 23.07.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Page No.# 2/3 A.K. Hussain and Mr. B. Hussain, learned Advocates for the petitioner and Mr. S. Baruah, learned Government Advocate, Assam for the respondents. 2. The challenge in the afore-noted writ appeal is against the judgment and order dated 11.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.3433/2023, who did not interfere with the order of dismissal of the appellant. 3. It appears that the appellant was, in a trap, caught in flagrante delicto accepting bribe money. A criminal case also was lodged against him. Later, in the disciplinary enquiry which was initiated, he was charge-sheeted and the Enquiry Officer examined witnesses on behalf of the prosecution. The appellant raised a grievance that 3(three) of the witnesses were examined in his absence. However, no objection was raised with respect to that during the entire departmental proceeding. 4. The Enquiry Officer concluded that the evidence was absolutely cogent so far as the culpability of the appellant was concerned. 5. A second show-cause notice also was issued to the appellant to which he had replied but the reply was not found to be satisfactory. Hence, he was subjected to a punishment of dismissal. 6. The appeal against the afore-noted punishment also could not succeed. 7. The learned Single Judge considered the questions raised before him including the issue of proportionality of the judgment to the offence committed. A reasoning has been given by the learned Single Judge which is quite in consonance with the law in that regard. It is only when the punishment is found by a Court to be outrageously disproportionate to the nature of the allegations Page No.# 3/3 levelled against the delinquent, then only the principle of proportionality would come into play. A decision by a Disciplinary Authority could be questioned on grounds of procedural impropriety, illegality or, perhaps, irrationality. The principle of proportionality was introduced in the service jurisprudence very late, specially, the choice of quantum of punishment being questionable. 8. True it is that the choice of quantum of punishment is within the domain of the Disciplinary Authority, but it cannot be gainsaid that any punishment which is not condign may be reviewed. It must suit the offence and the offender. If the sentence is unduly harsh or vindictive, or so disproportionate that it would shock the conscience, it would be akin to an evidence of bias. 9. In the present case, the learned Single Judge is absolutely justified in holding that the punishment imposed on the appellant was justified for the reason, primarily, of the appellant being in police force and, secondly, all evidence of having accepted the bribe money, being against him. 10. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 11. Thus, we dismiss the appeal but make it cost easy. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant