Page No.# 1/26 GAHC010057592024 2025:GAU-AS:10386 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1630/2024 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. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTERS B.K. KAKATI ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781007 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 HAMREN ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A K DAS, MS J AKTAR,MR A.SARKAR,MR. M KHAN Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, :::BEFORE::: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR Date of hearing : 29.07.2025 Date of Judgment & Order: 29.07.2025 Page No.# 2/26 JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. Mollah Khan, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. C. Chutia, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of all the respondents. 2. The petitioner, herein, by way of instituting the instant writ petition has presented a challenge to an order, dated 02-01-2024, issued by the disciplinary authority imposing upon him, the penalty of removal from service on conclusion of a departmental proceeding instituted against him. The petitioner has also presented a challenge to an order, dated 23-02- 2024, issued by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal preferred by him in the matter against the order, dated 02-01-2024, and upholding the penalty so imposed upon him by the disciplinary authority. 3. The brief facts requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding, is noticed as under: The petitioner, herein, was appointed as a Sub-Inspector of Police (Probation)(Unarmed Branch), vide order, dated 26-02-2021 and he had joined his services on 04-03-2021. The petitioner while serving at Baithalangso Police Station; a police case being Baithalangso Police Station Case No. 35/2023 under sections 341/384/409/201/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, came to be registered against him basing on an allegation that on 31-05-2023, while he was on naka duty along with his staff, on the pretext of police checking; had illegally collected money from the informant. The petitioner was arrested in connection with the said police case on 05-06-2023, however, on his production before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, West Karbi Anglong, Hemren, he was released on Page No.# 3/26 bail on the next day i.e. on 06-06-2023. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order, dated 05-06- 2023, in connection with his involvement in the said criminal case. However, the said order of suspension was revoked with effect from 05-12- 2023. The allegations levelled against the petitioner, herein, having revealed the commission of a misconduct by him; the disciplinary authority of the petitioner i.e. the Superintendent of Police, West Karbi Anglong, Hemren, proceeded to institute a departmental proceeding against the petitioner vide issuance of a Show Cause Notice, dated 09-07-2023. 3(three) allegations came to be levelled against the petitioner, herein; all pertaining to his conduct while discharging duties on 31-05-2023. The petitioner, on receipt of the said Show Cause Notice, submitted his reply thereto, on 18-07-2023. In the said reply, the petitioner had denied the allegations levelled against him in the said Show Cause Notice to be absolutely baseless and thereafter, by highlighting the proceedings instituted by him before this Court for setting aside the First Information Report(FIR) lodged in the matter leading to registration of Baithalangso Police Station Case No. 35/2023, refrained from dealing with the allegations levelled against him in the Show Cause Notice, dated 09-07-2023 in details. Page No.# 4/26 The disciplinary authority, not being satisfied with the reply as submitted by the petitioner, herein, in the matter; proceeded to direct for an inquiry and accordingly, an inquiry officer and a presenting officer, came to be appointed in the matter. The petitioner participated in the inquiry without any objection and on conclusion of the inquiry; the inquiry officer submitted his report in the matter. The said inquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner and he submitted his representation against the same on 11- 12-2023. The disciplinary authority, thereafter, on consideration of the materials coming on record in the inquiry, the inquiry report as well as the representation submitted, thereon, by the petitioner; proceeded to conclude that the allegations levelled against the petitioner vide the Show Cause Notice, dated 09-07-2023, stood established and proceeded to impose the penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner, herein. The disciplinary authority also issued a corrigendum on 22-01-2024 that the penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner, so effected would be w.e.f. 02-01-2024. The petitioner, herein, thereafter, filed an appeal in the matter vide his appeal memorandum, dated 09-01-2024. However, the appellate authority, on consideration of the same; proceeded to reject the contentions raised by the petitioner, therein, and by further holding that the penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner imposed by the disciplinary authority to be adequate; confirmed the same and rejected the appeal, in question. Page No.# 5/26 Being aggrieved, the petitioner, herein, has instituted the present proceeding before this Court. 4. It is to be noted that during the pendency of the present proceeding; the police, on conclusion of the investigation, the police had lodged a charge-sheet against the petitioner, herein, under Section 341/384/409/465/201/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, West Karbi Anglong, Hemren, in PRC Case No. 234/2023, considered the petition filed by the petitioner and other accused person in the case for discharge and on such consideration, proceeded vide order, dated 21-11-2024, to discharge the petitioner and the other accused by drawing a conclusion that there was no sufficient materials to prove the alleged offence against the accused persons. 5. Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has submitted that the charge levelled against the petitioner in the criminal case and that so levelled against him in the Show Cause Notice, dated 09- 07-2023, being the same and the petitioner having been discharged from the criminal case; the penalty as imposed upon him by the departmental authorities basing on the same charge; would mandate an interference from this Court. 6. Mr. Khan, learned counsel, by referring to the Show Cause Notice, dated 09-07-2023, and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, therein; has submitted that in the enquiry report submitted in the matter by the enquiry officer; the enquiry officer had recorded findings only with regard to one of the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the said Page No.# 6/26 Show Cause Notice, dated 09-07-2023. Mr. Khan, learned counsel, has further submitted that the conclusions so drawn by the enquiry officer in the enquiry report, are not based on the materials coming on record, rather, the same has been so drawn only for the purpose of holding the charge levelled against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding; to have been established. 7. Mr. Khan, learned counsel, by referring to the order, dated 02-01- 2024, passed by the disciplinary authority, has submitted that the disciplinary authority had failed to appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioner in his representation submitted against the enquiry report, wherein, he had brought on record, the lacunae existing in the enquiry, more particularly, with regard to the conclusions drawn by the enquiry officer in the enquiry report. Mr. Khan, learned counsel, has further submitted that the conclusions drawn by the disciplinary authority in the order, dated 02-01-2024, have been so drawn without a proper appreciation of the materials coming on record in the enquiry. 8. Mr. Khan, learned counsel, has further submitted that even before the appellate authority, the petitioner, herein, in his appeal memorandum, dated 09-01-2024, had categorically stated there was no material brought on record to justify the imposition of the penalty of removal from service upon him. The learned counsel has further submitted that in his appeal memorandum, the petitioner had highlighted that the conclusions drawn by the enquiry officer suffered from inherent contradictions, however, the appellate authority, ignoring the same, proceeded to uphold the penalty of removal from service imposed upon the petitioner. Accordingly, Mr. Khan, Page No.# 7/26 learned counsel, has submitted that the order, dated 02-01-2024, along with the order passed by the appellate authority; would mandate an interference from this court. 9. Mr. Khan, learned counsel, has further submitted that the petitioner, herein, being a probationary Sub-Inspector of Police(UAB); his career ought not to be permitted to be terminated in the manner, it was so done and accordingly, the learned counsel has prayed that upon interference of the orders, impugned in the present petition, a direction be issued by this Court to the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in his service. 10. To buttress his submissions, Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has relied upon the following decisions: 1. The decision of this Court in the case of W. Birbal Singh v. State of Manipur & ors., reported in 2010(5) GLT 371; 2. The decision of this Court in the case of Kiran Chandra Deka v. State of Assam & ors., reported in 2016(3) GLT 256; 3. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat & anr., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 740; and 4. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan & ors., reported in (2024) 1 SCC 175. 11. Per contra, Mr. Chutia, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State Respondents, has submitted that the contention of the petitioner that he having been discharged in the criminal proceeding instituted against him in the matter by the learned trial Court, Page No.# 8/26 the penalty imposed upon him by the disciplinary authority, would mandated an interference; is clearly not sustainable, in-as-much as, the said discharge would not ipso facto absolve the petitioner from his liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction. The learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate has further submitted that the discharge of the petitioner by the learned trial Court, would have no impact on the concluded departmental proceeding instituted against him. 12. Mr. Chutia, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, by highlighting that the discharge of the petitioner, herein, at the stage of framing of charge, was so directed by the learned trial Court only upon examining the materials brought on record by the investigating officer and the same not being in pursuance to a full-fledged trial, wherein, the witnesses were so examined; has submitted that the same would have no bearing on the conclusions drawn by the disciplinary authority in the matter, which was so done, basing on the materials coming on record in the inquiry instituted against the petitioner, wherein, the allegations levelled against him were, admittedly, established. 13. Mr. Chutia, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, has further submitted that the petitioner, in the present proceeding, has not contended that he was denied of a due opportunity in the inquiry to defend his case. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate that the conclusion as drawn by the enquiry officer, would not mandate interference by this Court. 14. Mr. Chutia, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, by contending Page No.# 9/26 that this Court, while exercising its power of judicial review, would not act as an appellate court, has submitted that the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner, herein, being not perverse; would not call for an interference from this Court. The learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate has further submitted that the disciplinary authority in the matter, having agreed with the conclusions drawn by the inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority was not called upon to give detailed reasons against each of the charges framed against the petitioner, herein. 15. In the above premises, Mr. Chutia, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, has submitted that the present writ petition would not mandate an acceptance and the same would be required to be dismissed. 16. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 17. A departmental proceeding was instituted against the petitioner, herein, vide issuance of a Show Cause Notice, dated 09-07-2023. The charges framed against the petitioner, therein, being relevant, is extracted, hereinbelow: “You are hereby required to show cause under Articles 311 of the Constitution of India and Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1964 as to why any of the penalties under Rule 7 of Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1964 should not be inflicted on you on the following charges based on the statement of allegation attached herewith as Annexure A 1. That while you were posted in West Karbi Anglong District as Probationer Sub-Inspector vide Memo No. FA/1/6/2018/Pt-1/332 dated 29/3/2022 for a period of 2 (two) years and you were attached to Baithalangso PS. Vide Memo No WKA/R/08/ 2021 /670-A Dtd 16/08/2022 and you joined as Probationer Sub- Inspector on 18/08/2022 at Baithalangso PS. You have failed to discharge the duties and responsibilities as Probationer Sub-Inspector, rather in the guise of performing vehicle checking on the Public road, you have resorted to activities Page No.# 10/26 of extortion from the public and as such you are involved in serious Criminal misconduct. 2. That while you were Probationer Sub-Inspector in West Karbi Anglong district, you were involved in extortion and forcefully took away the valuables such as money etc, from the bike riders, and pedestrians. On 31/05/2023, while you were on the public road at Umru under Baithalangso PS at about 3PM to 4 PM you intercepted a person namely Yasin Ali who was coming on bike and stopped him under your command. On the pretext of doing checking the Police personnel under your command took away the key of his bike and his mobile phone along with 220 that was in his shirt pocket. When the Bike rider Yasin Ali enquired about his restrain to you, one Abhijit Boro, HG slapped him under your direction. The Police personnel under your command took away 30,000/- from the pocket of Yasin All. When Yasin All asked for his 30,000/- you asked him to come to Baithalangso PS. The victim Yasin Ali then insisted to return the money taken from him forcefully but you made a concocted story as if that somebody has found the money handed over the money to police station and to effect the concocted story you engaged one Jeetu Basumatary to make a telephone call on 04/06/2023 to Yasin All to collect the money. The victim Yasin All then lodged FIR at Baithalangso PS. in to the entire incident. Therefore, being a Probationer Sub-Inspector committing such illegal activities of extortion and wrongful restrain in the public, you have involved in a serious criminal misconduct. 3. That while you were posted as Probationer Sub-Inspector at Baithalangso PS under West Karbi Anglong district, on 31/05/2023, you were at Hongkram Tiniali, you resorted to wrongful restrain to the pedestrian and extorted money, from one Babu Singh Teron was coming on foot with two buffaloes. When Babu Singh Teron along with buffaloes reached the Tinali, the police party under your command and asked him to stop and checked the receipt of the buffaloes. Although receipt was in his name, the police personnel under your command threatened him to take the buffaloes to the police station. From the illegal demand made by you Sri Babu Singh Teron agreed to pay 3000/- but you demanded ₹15,000/- Therefore, at around 7 o'clock in same day you made a telephone call from your mobile phone number 9085238121 to Babu Singh Teron for money. Sri Babu Singh Teron reportedly took 13,000 from a trader and handed over the said money to you near Baithalangso Fish Market 4. That while you were posted as Probationer Sub-Inspector at Baithalangso P.S., West Karbi Anglong district on 31/05/2023 in the guise of vehicle checking at public road at Umru, from 3 PM to 4 PM you restrained one Mazibur Rahman, S/O Abdul Barek Vill- Singimari, PS- Kachua who was going to Rongkur on motor bike to bring Roti for his friends, the Police personnel under your command forcibly took 17,500/- from his pocket and snatched his mobile phone and key of the motorcycle. Therefore, as such due to illegal activities of extortion from the bike rider you are involved in a serious criminal misconduct. Your above acts tantamount to serious criminal misconduct is highly unbecoming of a member of a disciplined force. Therefore, you are charged with serious criminal misconduct accordingly.” Page No.# 11/26 18. A perusal of the said Show Cause Notice, dated 09-07-2023, would go reveal that with regard to the conduct of the petitioner, herein, while discharging his duties on 31-05-2023, 3(three) distinct allegations came to be levelled against him. 19. The first allegation levelled against the petitioner, pertains to his interception of a person, namely Yasin Ali, who was coming on bike. It is alleged that the said person was stopped by the police personnel under the command of the petitioner, herein, and the key of his bike, mobile phone along with Rs. 220/- was taken away from him. It is further alleged that the police personnel involved in the naka duty, under the command of the petitioner, herein, had taken away Rs. 30,000/- from the pocket of Yasin Ali. Further, Yasin Ali, on insisting for return of his money, it is seen that the money was returned after the same was found by one Jeetu Basumatary. It is alleged that basing on the pressure exerted by said Yasin Ali, the petitioner had engaged one Jeetu Basumatary to make a telephone call to Yasin Ali on 04-06-2023, by projecting that said Jeetu Basumatary had recovered the money and asked Yasin Ali to have the same collected from him. Said Yasin Ali, thereafter, lodged an First Information Report(FIR) at Baithalangso Police Station, in this connection. 20. The second allegation levelled against the petitioner, herein, is that on the same day i.e. on 31-05-2023, he had wrongfully restrained a pedestrian and extorted money from him. The pedestrian so restrained is one Sri Babu Singh Teron who was coming on foot with two buffalos. The petitioner, purportedly, had asked said Babu Singh Teron to furnish the receipts of the buffalos which were with him and made an illegal demand of Page No.# 12/26 Rs 15,000/- from him. It is alleged that on the same day, the petitioner had made a phone call to said Babu Singh Teron for the money and said Babu Singh Teron after taking Rs 10,000/-, on loan, had handed over the money to the petitioner, herein. 21. The third allegation levelled against the petitioner, pertains to the same day i.e. 31-05-2023, wherein, it was alleged that in the guise of vehicle checking, he had restrained one Mazibur Rahman and the police personnel under his command, had forcibly taken Rs 17,500/- from his pocket and had also snatched his mobile phone and the key of the motorcycle on which he was cruising. 22. The petitioner was, accordingly, charged of commission of a serious criminal misconduct, unbecoming of a member of a disciplined force. The petitioner, thereafter, on receipt of the Show Cause Notice, dated 09-07- 2023, had submitted his reply thereto and therein, while denying the allegations levelled against him; had contended that he had filed a criminal petition before this Court for setting aside and quashing the First Information Report(FIR) lodged by Yasin Ali on 05-06-2023, which was registered as Baithalangso Police Station Case No. 35/2023. The petitioner had in view of the institution by him of the said criminal petition before this Court, refrained from offering any comment on the allegations made against him in the Show Cause Notice, dated 09-07-2023. The petitioner had further prayed for keeping in abeyance the, Show Cause Notice, dated 09-07-2023, till the matter is finally decided by this Court in the criminal petition. Page No.# 13/26 23. It is seen that the disciplinary authority, not being satisfied with the contentions raised by the petitioner, in his show cause reply, directed for holding an enquiry and an enquiry officer came to be appointed in the matter. It is to be noted that the petitioner participated in the said enquiry without any objection. 24. In the enquiry, the Department had examined as many as 11(eleven) witnesses including the persons from whom the petitioner was alleged to have extorted money i.e. Yasin Ali, Babu Singh Teron and Mazibur Rahman. 25. A perusal of the statements made by the projected victim, Yasin Ali, as PW-1 in the enquiry, would go to reveal that he had reiterated the allegations levelled by him in the First Information Report(FIR). The PW-1, in his statement, had deposed that he had approached the petitioner, herein, on the next day, demanding his money. The said witness had contended that he had told the petitioner that it was he who had taken the money i.e. Rs. 30,000/- from his pocket but the same was denied by the petitioner, herein. It was also deposed that the said witness was pursuing the matter with the petitioner for return of his money. The said witness further deposed that the petitioner had told him that it had come to his knowledge that some police personnel had found his money and asked him to have patience for 2-3 days. Thereafter, a stranger called the said witness on phone and told him that he had found his money while rearing cattle near Umro and asked him to collect it from the Council gate. As it was late at night, the said witness had told that he would get back to the caller. Later, the PW-1, had lodged an First Information Report(FIR) against the petitioner. The said deposition of Yasin Ali was permitted to go on record by Page No.# 14/26 the petitioner, herein, and he had not cross-examined the said witness. 26. Likewise Babu Singh Teron, another projected victim, had deposed in the enquiry as PW-2. The said PW-2 had during his deposition stated that the petitioner had demanded Rs. 17,000/- from him. However, the said PW- 2 had paid Rs. 3,000/- to the petitioner. Thereafter, the said witness had paid Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner on the same day at night. It is seen that the petitioner, herein, had cross-examined the said PW-2 i.e. Babu Singh Teron and had asked, whether he had paid Rs. 3,000/- to the petitioner to which the said witness had replied in affirmative. 27. The third projected victim Mazibur Rahman had deposed as PW-3 and during his deposition, he had stated that the police party had taken Rs. 17,500/- from his pocket along with his phone and the key of his vehicle. The PW-3 had further deposed that the mobile phone and the money so taken from him, were kept by the police but his bike key was returned to him and he was asked to leave. The said PW-3 had also deposed that in the evening, he had gone to the police station concerned and requested the petitioner to return his mobile. The mobile phone was returned by the petitioner to him. It is to be noted that the petitioner although was offered to cross-examine said Mazibur Rahman who had deposed as PW-3 in the enquiry but the petitioner had declined to do so. 28. The other witnesses deposing in the enquiry as PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8 and PW-9, are the police personnel. 29. It is relevant to note the deposition made by PW-6, namely, Ziaur Page No.# 15/26 Rahman Khan, Inspector of Police. During his deposition, while reiterating the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the PW-6 had deposed that Yasin Ali had received a phone call from an unknown person who had informed him that the money lost by him, was found and he was asked to collect the same. The said PW-6 had further submitted that during the enquiry made in the matter, he had examined the victims. The petitioner had cross-examined said PW-6 during the cross-examination and had questioned him as to why he had not examined Jeetu Basumatary, to which the said witness had submitted that he had only conducted a preliminary enquiry and said Jeetu Basumatary was examined later by the Investigating Officer. 30. Sri Ramesh Boro, a Home Guard who was also a part of the police party along with the petitioner, deployed for naka duty on 31-05-2023, was examined as PW-8 in the enquiry and he had deposed that Jeetu Basumatary is the person who claimed to have found the money belonging to Yasin Ali, was, in fact, his brother-in-law. Said Jeetu Basumatary was examined in the enquiry as PW-10, and therein, he had deposed that the money was found by him, when he had proceeded to attend nature's call near a bamboo grove besides the road. 31. The enquiry officer on conclusion of the enquiry, submitted his enquiry report in the matter on 31.10.2023. A perusal of the enquiry report would go to reveal that although materials had come on record with regard to all the 3(three) distinct allegations levelled against the petitioner; the enquiry officer had dealt with only one of the allegations qua Yasin Ali. The other allegations levelled against the petitioner in the Show Cause Notice, Page No.# 16/26 dated 09-07-2023, pertaining to the purported extortion of money made by him from Babu Singh Teron and Mazibur Rahman, were not dealt with. The enquiry officer on consideration of the materials coming on record in the enquiry pertaining to the purported extortion of money made by the petitioner, herein, from said Yasin Ali, on 31-05-2023, had concluded that the same was established. Thereafter, the enquiry officer proceeded to record a satisfaction to the effect that upon consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the proceeding, as discussed in the enquiry report and on careful consideration by applying the ‘preponderance of probability’; the charge of criminal misconduct brought against the petitioner, herein, was held to be established. 32. The petitioner, herein, submitted a representation against the findings of the enquiry officer and it is seen, on a perusal, thereof; that he had dealt with the depositions recorded by all the witnesses appearing in the enquiry including the depositions made by Sri Babu Singh Teron, as PW-2, and Sri Mazibur Rahman, as PW-3. The petitioner, in his said representation, highlighted certain contradictions that had come on record in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. However, on a close perusal of the same, it is found that the contradictions as highlighted by the petitioner, in his representation, would not be of any consequence. 33. The disciplinary authority, thereafter, on consideration of the materials coming on record in the enquiry, the enquiry report and the representation submitted by the petitioner, herein; proceeded to accept the said enquiry report. On such acceptance, the disciplinary authority proceeded further to record a finding to the effect that the petitioner being a probationer, was Page No.# 17/26 involved in a serious misconduct. With regard to the inconsistencies highlighted by the petitioner with regard to the depositions of the witnesses in the enquiry; the disciplinary authority rejected the same and held that the petitioner had not cross-examined said Yasin Ali and Mazibur Rahman as well as a few other police personnel deposing in the enquiry. It was further concluded that the statements of said Yasin Ali, brought on record, the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of criminal misconduct alleged against him. 34. By referring to the deposition of Sri Babu Singh Teron, PW-2; the disciplinary authority concluded that although the said witness was cross- examined by the petitioner, herein, the involvement of the petitioner was further established during such cross-examination. Basing on the said conclusion; the disciplinary authority proceeded to impose upon the petitioner, the penalty of removal from service. Thereafter, vide a corrigendum, dated 02-01-2024; the penalty of removal from service as imposed upon the petitioner was specified to be so imposed w.e.f. 02-01- 2024. The enquiry officer having only dealt with one of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, herein, in the Show Cause Notice, dated 09- 07-2023; it is to be examined by this Court that if the same can be held to have been established in the enquiry. This Court would also examine as to whether basing on the sole allegation held to be established in the enquiry against the petitioner, herein; the penalty of removal from service, would be permissible to be imposed upon him. 35. A perusal of the materials brought on record in the enquiry, more particularly, the deposition of said Yasin Ali therein, would go to reveal that Page No.# 18/26 the allegations levelled against the petitioner of having extorted from him, an amount of Rs. 30,000/-, in addition, to an amount of Rs. 220/-; was established in the enquiry. The petitioner had, admittedly, not cross- examined Sri Yasin Ali who had deposed in the enquiry, as PW-1. The evidence of said Yasin Ali establishes the fact that the petitioner who was a police officer and that too, in the rank of a Sub-Inspector, had resorted to extortion of money and thereby, had committed a criminal misconduct. Accordingly, in the considered view of this Court, the said allegations levelled against the petitioner, herein, and proved in the enquiry, can form the basis for imposition of the penalty of removal from service, in-as-much as, the petitioner is a member of the disciplined force and has a code of conduct set-out in the matter to be followed, which he had clearly violated. 36. Accordingly, in the considered view of this Court; the penalty of removal from service as imposed upon the petitioner, herein, by the disciplinary authority vide order, dated 02-01-2024, even if considered to have been so done solely on the basis of the allegations levelled against him, qua the extortion of money made by him from said Yasin Ali; the same having been established, the penalty, in question, cannot be held to have been so imposed without there being any basis for the same. 37. 37. The petitioner, herein, in the appeal preferred in the matter, had only highlighted the inconsistencies in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses appearing in the enquiry. The appellate authority, vide order, dated 23-02-2024, on noticing the said contention of the petitioner; had rightly rejected the same and upheld the penalty imposed upon the petitioner by the appellate authority. Page No.# 19/26 38. Having drawn the above conclusions; this Court notices that it is a settled position of law that the power of judicial review exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with regard to the disciplinary proceeding and order passed therein, is not an appeal, but, a review of the manner in which the decision is made. This court, while exercising its power of judicial review, is to ensure that the delinquent had received fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusions which the authority reaches, is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an enquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a delinquent, the Court is concerned to determine whether the enquiry was held by a competent officer, or, whether the rules of natural justice are complied with. This Court is also required to examine whether the findings, or, conclusions, are based on some evidence and the authority entrusted with the power to hold the enquiry had the jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. Neither, the technical rules of evidence act, nor, of proof of fact, or, evidence as defined, therein, apply to a disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusions received support thereon, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. This Court, in its power of judicial review, does not act as an appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. This Court may interfere in a matter where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice, or, in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry. It is also permissible for this Court to interfere with the conclusions and findings of a disciplinary authority, in the event, the same is based on no evidence. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of the facts and the appellate authority also has co-extensive power to re-appreciate the evidence, or, the Page No.# 20/26 nature of punishment. The adequacy of evidence, or, reliability of evidence, also cannot be permitted by this Court to be canvassed by the delinquent. 39. Having noticed the powers of this Court while examining, in exercise of its power of judicial review, the orders of a disciplinary authority; this court, in the present proceeding, does not find any violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner, in the enquiry, is found to have been extended with all due opportunity to defend his case as well as cross- examine the witnesses. The petitioner had exercised his right of cross- examination selectively and as noticed hereinabove, during the cross- examination so made; the allegations levelled against the petitioner, herein, was further reiterated. 40. The deposition of said Yasin Ali as PW-1, in the enquiry, having not been refuted by the petitioner, herein, by cross-examining him; the said evidence having established the misconduct committed on the part of the petitioner, this Court finds no perversity with regard to the conclusions so drawn, thereon, by the enquiry officer in the enquiry report and the disciplinary authority in its order, dated 02-01-2024. 41. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court notices that pertaining to the allegations levelled against the petitioner, herein, in the Show Cause Notice, dated 09-07-2023, of purportedly extorting money from said Yasin Ali, a criminal proceeding, thereon, was also instituted against the petitioner basing on an First Information Report(FIR) lodged by said Yasin Ali. The police on receipt of the said First Information Report(FIR), had registered Baithalangso Police Station Case No. 35/2023. Page No.# 21/26 On conclusion of the investigation, thereon, the police had lodged a charge- sheet against the petitioner, herein, and other accused persons under Section 341/384/409/465/201/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, West Karbi Anglong, Hemren, upon consideration of the petition filed by the petitioner and other accused persons for their discharge in the matter, had, vide order, dated 21-11- 2024, proceeded to discharge the petitioner and other accused persons by drawing a conclusion that there was no sufficient material to prove the offence alleged against the petitioner, herein, and other accused persons. 42. Mr. Khan, learned counsel, by projecting that the enquiry officer only having drawn his conclusions with regard to the allegation levelled against the petitioner, herein, in the Show Cause Notice, dated 09-07-2023, of the purported extortion made by him from said Yasin Ali and basing on the same allegation; the petitioner, having been discharged from the criminal proceeding drawn against him, the conclusions drawn by the enquiry officer in the enquiry report, in this connection, would not mandate acceptance and accordingly, the order, dated 02-01-2024, passed by the disciplinary authority, would mandate an interference by this Court. 43. In support of his submissions, Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, as noted-above, has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.M.Tank(supra) and Ram Lal (supra). 44. At this stage, it is to be noted that the petitioner, herein, was discharged by the learned trial Court from the criminal charges in the Page No.# 22/26 criminal case levelled against him, at the stage of framing of charge. 45. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.M.Tank (supra), in the facts of the said case, had held that the departmental case and the criminal case involved therein, were based on identical and similar set of facts and the charges in the departmental case against the appellant and the charge before the criminal court, were one and the same and the case being one of no evidence and the witnesses being the same in both the proceedings and the appellant involved therein, having been acquitted in the criminal case; the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that under such circumstances, it would be unjust and unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded in the departmental proceeding against the appellant, therein, to stand. 46. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while recording the said conclusion in the case of G. M.Tank(supra), had also noted that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal proceeding after a regular trial and/or on hot contest. The relevant conclusions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter, as available in paragraph No. 31, is extracted hereinbelow: “31. In our opinion, such facts and evidence in the departmental as well as criminal proceedings were the same without there being any iota of difference, the appellant should succeed. The distinction which is usually proved between the departmental and criminal proceedings on the basis of the approach and burden of proof would not be applicable in the instant case. Though the finding recorded in the domestic enquiry was found to be valid by the courts below, when there was an honourable acquittal of the employee during the pendency of the proceedings challenging the dismissal, the same requires to be taken note of and the decision in Paul Anthony case will apply. We, therefore, hold that the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed.” 47. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.M.Tank(supra) was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in one of Page No.# 23/26 its recent decision in the case of Ram Lal(supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in this connection, had proceeded to draw the following conclusions: “Effect of acquittal in the criminal proceeding - Question 2 25. With this above background, if we examine the criminal proceedings the following factual position emerges. The very same witnesses, who were examined in the departmental enquiry were examined in the criminal trial. Jagdish Chandra, Bhawani Singh, Shravan Lal, Raj Singh and Karan Sharma were examined as PW 2, PW 3, PW 6, PW 9 and PW 13 respectively at the criminal trial. Apart fromthem, eight other witnesses were also exam ed. The gravamen of the charge in the criminal case was that the appellant had submitted an application for recruitment along with his marksheet and he, by making alteration in his date of birth to reflect the same as 24- 4-1972 in place of 21-4-1974, and obtained recruitment to the post of Constable. 26. Though the trial court convicted the appellant under Section 420 IPC, the appellate court recorded the following crucial findings while acquitting the appellant: "...Mainly the present case was based on the documents so this effect whether the date of birth of accused is 21-4-1972 or 21-4-1974. Ext. P-3 is original marksheet, in which, the date of birth of accused has been shown as 21-4-1972 and same has also been proved by the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. Whatever the documents have been produced before the court regarding the date of birth of 21-4-1974 are either the letters of Principal or are duplicate TC or marksheets. Neither the prosecution has produced any such original documents in the subordinate court to this effect that when the admission form of accused was filled, what date of birth was mentioned by the accused in it, what was the date of birth in Roll Register of School, what date of birth was mentioned by accused in the examination form of Secondary, and nor after bringing the original records from the witnesses concerned, same were got proved in the evidence. In these circumstances, this fact becomes doubtful that date of birth of the accused was 21-4-1974, and the accused is entitled to receive its benefit. In the considered opinion of this Court, the conviction made by the learned subordinate court merely on the basis of oral evidence and letters or duplicate documents, is not just and proper. It is justifiable to acquit the accused. Resultantly, on the basis of aforesaid consideration, the present appeal filed by the appellant-accused is liable to be allowed." (emphasis supplied) 27. What is important to notice is that the Appellate Judge has clearly recorded that in the document Ext. P-3 original marksheet of the 8th standard, the date of birth was clearly shown as 21-4-1972 and the other documents produced by the prosecution were either letters or a duplicate marksheet. No doubt, the Appellate Judge says that it becomes doubtful whether the date of birth was 21-4-1974 and that the accused was entitled to receive its benefit. However, what we are supposed to see is the substance of the judgment. A reading of the entire judgment clearly indicates that the appellant was acquitted after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and after noticing that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge (see S. Samuthiram). 28. Expressions like "benefit of doubt" and "honourably acquitted", used in judgments are not to be understood as magic incantations. A court of law will not be carried Page No.# 24/26 away by the mere use of such terminology. In the present case, the Appellate Judge has recorded that Ext. P-3, the original marksheet carries the date of birth as 21-4- 1972 and the same has also been proved by the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. The conclusion that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge can only be arrived at after a reading of the judgment in its entirety. The Court in judicial review is obliged to examine the substance of the judgment and not go by the form of expression used. 29. We are satisfied that the findings of the Appellate Judge in the criminal case clearly indicate that the charge against the appellant was not just, "not proved" in fact the charge even stood "disproved" by the very prosecution evidence. As held by this Court, a fact is said to be "disproved" when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes that it does not exist or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist. A fact is said to be "not proved" when it is neither "proved" nor "disproved"(see Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P.). 30. We are additionally satisfied that in the teeth of the finding of the Appellate Judge, the disciplinary proceedings and the orders passed thereon cannot be allowed to stand. The charges were not just similar but identical and the evidence, witnesses and circumstances were all the same. This is a case where in exercise of our discretion, we quash the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority as allowing them to stand will be unjust, unfair and oppressive. This case is very similar to the situation that arose in G.M. Tanks.” 48. Applying the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.M.Tank(supra) and Ram Lal(supra), to the facts of the present case; it is seen that the petitioner in the present case, was discharged from the criminal charge levelled against him at the stage of framing of charge. It is a settled position of law that the trial Court in a criminal proceeding, at the stage of framing of charge, only assesses whether there is a prima facie case against the accused, meaning ‘sufficient evidence’, to proceed against the trial. If the Court finds that the evidence brought on record by the investigating agency is weak or lacking, it may discharge an accused. At that stage, it cannot be conclusively said that the accused's guilt, or, innocence, has been decided, rather, the same pertains to the fact whether the prosecution had now presented enough evidence to warrant a trial. Page No.# 25/26 49. In the case on hand, it is to be noted that the discharge of the petitioner, herein, had occasioned at the stage of charge framing. The learned trial Court having discharged the petitioner at the initial stage of the trial, there was no occasion for the learned trial Court to examine the evidences that would have come on record, in the event, a trial was held in the criminal proceeding so instituted against the petitioner. Accordingly, the order of discharge of the petitioner passed by the learned trial Court, admittedly, not being in pursuance of a regular trial, and/or, on hot contest; this Court is of the considered view that in the light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding the field in the matter that the power of the disciplinary authority, under such circumstances, to hold a disciplinary inquiry in the matter, is not denuded. Further, the said discharge of the petitioner in the criminal proceedings, in the facts and circumstances involved in the present proceeding, would have no bearing on the already concluded departmental proceeding against the petitioner, herein. 50. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the decisions of the Supreme Court of India in the case of G.M.Tank(supra) and Ram Lal (supra), will have no application to the facts of the present matter. 51. In view of the above discussions; this Court holds that the said discharge of the petitioner, herein, would have no consequence on the concluded departmental proceedings, involved in the matter. This Court further by noticing the conclusions drawn by the enquiry officer in his enquiry report and the conclusions drawn by the disciplinary authority, in its order, dated 02-01-2024, even, by limiting the same to the allegation levelled against the petitioner in the Show Cause Notice, dated 09-07- Page No.# 26/26 2023, pertaining to the purported extortion of money made by him from said Yasin Ali on 31-05-2023, the same having demonstrated commission of misconduct by the petitioner, herein; the penalty of removal from service imposed upon the petitioner, in the considered view of this Court, is not disproportionate to the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the said Show Cause Notice, dated 09-07-2023, and established in the enquiry. Accordingly, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner, herein, would not mandate any interference from this Court. 52. In the above view of the matter; this Court is of the considered view that the instant writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the same, consequently, stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant