ORDER : YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J. WP(C) No. 203 (K)/2025 and WP(C) No. 204 (K)/2025 are disposed of by this common Order as both the petitions are similar in nature and pertains to the same issues. 2. The petitioner in WP(C)/203/2025 was appointed as NCE cook under the Police Department by an Order dated 30.04.2011, and he is serving the department till date. Based on a complaint, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner being Kohima South PS Case No. 0021/2018 U/S 420 IPC R/W 7/13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In view of the registration of the said criminal case, the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 31.07.2018. Disciplinary proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner and based on the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner was re-instated in service by the impugned order dated 13.03.2020 with a penalty of withholding of increments for 2 (two) years with cumulative effect with a condition that the period of suspension till re-instatement is treated as such (not entitled for pay and allowances) but, without break of service for pension benefits. 3. Subsequently, by an order dated 30.04.2024, the petitioner was discharged from the criminal case by an order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class. 4. The petitioner thereafter, submitted a representation dated 05.08.2024 praying for review of the penalty and the re-instatement order dated 13.03.2020 under the provisions of FR 52(B) and to pay full arrears and allowances for the suspension period. Having failed to get any positive response from the authorities, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No. 237/2024. Accordingly, this Court by order dated 01.08.2025 disposed of the WP(C)/237/2024 with a direction to the respondent No. 3/ Appellate Authority to treat the representation dated 05.08.2024 as an Appeal under Rule 17 (2) (d) of the Nagaland (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1967 and to dispose of the same within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 5. Consequent upon the direction of this Court in WP(C)/237/2024, the appellate authority issued the impugned order dated 26th August, 2025, whereby, the prayer of the petitioner to review the penalty and re- instatement order and to pay full salary and allowances for the suspension period was rejected and the finding of the Disciplinary Authority was upheld. 6. 5. Consequent upon the direction of this Court in WP(C)/237/2024, the appellate authority issued the impugned order dated 26th August, 2025, whereby, the prayer of the petitioner to review the penalty and re- instatement order and to pay full salary and allowances for the suspension period was rejected and the finding of the Disciplinary Authority was upheld. 6. Similarly, the petitioner in WP(C)/204 (K)/2025 was appointed as a constable by an order dated 10.10.2001 and subsequently, by another order dated 12.10.2001 his appointment order was partially modified to the effect that his appointment is to be treated as a regular appointment. Since, then, the petitioner has been serving in the Police Department for more than 23 years. 7. A complaint was lodged against the petitioner by one Neeraj Paswan and a case was registered against the petitioner in Kohima South PS Case No. 00021/2018 U/S 420 IPC R/W 7/13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 8. Basing on the complaint and the registration of the criminal case, the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 02.10.2018. Thereafter, Disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. On completion of the proceeding, based on the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, by an order dated 13.03.2020, the petitioner was imposed a penalty of withholding of increments for 2 (two) years with cumulative effect and re-instated in service. By the said re-instatement order, it was also provided that the period of suspension till re-instatement is treated as such (not entitled for pay and allowances) but without break of service for pension. 9. Subsequently, by an order dated 30.04.2024, the petitioner in WP(C)/204 (K)/2025 was also discharged from the criminal liability of the charges in GR Case No. 96/2018 arising out of Kohima South PS Case No. 00021/2018. 10. The petitioner in WP(C)/204/2025 also submitted a representation dated 05.08.2024 to the respondent No. 3 praying for review of the penalty and the re-instatement order dated 13.03.2020 under the provisions of FR 54 (B) and to pay the full arrears and allowances for the suspension period. 11. The petitioner approached this Court by allowing a Writ Petition which was registered as WP(C)/238/2024. 11. The petitioner approached this Court by allowing a Writ Petition which was registered as WP(C)/238/2024. This Court on considering the pleadings and hearing the parties held that there is an Appeal provision under Rule 17(2) (d) of the Nagaland Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1967 to redress the grievance of the petitioner and therefore, by the order dated 01.08.2025 this Court disposed of WP(C)/238/2024 with a direction to the respondent No. 3/Appellate Authority to treat the representation dated 05.08.2024 as an Appeal under Rule 17 (2) (d) of the Nagaland Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules 1967 and to dispose of the same within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 12. Consequent upon the order of this Court, the Director General of Police/ Appellant Authority issued the impugned order dated 26th August, 2025 by which the order dated 13.03.2020 issued by the Disciplinary Authority was upheld. 13. Being aggrieved the petitioners have come before this court by filing the instant writ petitions assailing the impugned orders dated 13.03.2020 and 26th August, 2025 and praying for a direction to the respondents to pay the salary and allowances for the suspension period. 14. Heard Mr. Wati Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. E. Thiba Phom, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is a settled principle of law that when the charges in both the departmental proceeding and the criminal case is based on the same set of facts, on being acquitted from the criminal charges, the delinquent cannot be found guilty of the charges framed in the departmental proceedings. In other words when a person is acquitted/ discharged from the criminal case, the order passed in the disciplinary proceeding cannot be allowed to stand when both the proceedings are placed on the same facts. 16. It is submitted that the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioners and the criminal charges against them were based on identical set of facts. In other words when a person is acquitted/ discharged from the criminal case, the order passed in the disciplinary proceeding cannot be allowed to stand when both the proceedings are placed on the same facts. 16. It is submitted that the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioners and the criminal charges against them were based on identical set of facts. Therefore, the order and finding of the disciplinary authority dated 13.03.2020 cannot stand the test of law and is liable to be interfered with and the respondent authority should be directed to pay the full salary arrears for the period of suspension i.e., 31.07.2018 till 13.03.2020 in the case of the petitioner in WP(C)/203/2025 and 02.10.2018 to 13.03.2020 in respect of the petitioner in WP(C)/204/2025. 17. It is further, submitted that in view of the petitioners discharge from the criminal case, it was incumbent on the part of the respondents to review the penalty and the re-instatement order whereby the pay and allowances for the suspension period has been denied. However, by the impugned orders dated 26.08.2025 and 13.03.2020, the petitioners have been denied the full pay and allowances for the suspension period. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that upon discharge from the criminal case and upon re-instatement in service, the petitioners were entitled for full salary and allowances for the period of suspension. However, the entitlement of the petitioners has been denied by the authorities and as such, it is prayed that the impugned orders dated 26.08.2025 and 13.03.2020 may be quashed and set aside and direction may be issued to the respondents to pay the full salary and allowances for the period of suspension. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the case of:- i. CAPT. M. PAUL ANTHONY VS. BHARAT GOLD MINES LTD. AND ANOTHER , (1999) 3 SCC 679 ii. RAM LAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS reported in (2024) 1 SCC 175 and, iii. JUDGMENT & ORDER dated 17.08.2023 in WP(C)/236/2021 20. By relying on the above-mentioned authorities, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ram Lal, (Supra) and CAPT. AND ANOTHER , (1999) 3 SCC 679 ii. RAM LAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS reported in (2024) 1 SCC 175 and, iii. JUDGMENT & ORDER dated 17.08.2023 in WP(C)/236/2021 20. By relying on the above-mentioned authorities, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ram Lal, (Supra) and CAPT. M. PAUL ANTHONY (Supra) has categorically held that if the charges in the departmental enquiry and the criminal Court are identical or similar and if the evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same, then the matter acquires a different dimension. If the court in judicial review concludes 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, the court in judicial review can grant redress in certain circumstances. The Court will be entitled to exercise its discretion and grant relief, if it concludes that allowing the findings in the disciplinary proceedings to stand will be unjust, unfair and oppressive. Also in WP(C)/236/2024, the learned counsel submits that a coordinate bench of this Court had directed the State respondent to pay the full salary/pay and allowances to the petitioner for the suspension period after adjustment of the amount already paid to the petitioner towards subsistence allowances. 21. Per Contra, Mr. E. Thiba Phom, the learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioners in WP(C)/203/2025 and WP(C)204/2025 were suspended in view of their arrest on 07.07.2018 in connection with the Kohima South P.S Case No. 0021/2018, which was initiated by a complaint filed by one Neeraj Paswan against the petitioners alleging that the petitioners had taken a sum of Rs. 2 (two) lakhs from him with the promise to find him a job in the Nagaland Police. However, the petitioners could not get him the appointment nor returned back the money. 22. Thereafter, in exercise of power conferred by Rule 10 of the Nagaland Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rule 1967, the Director General of Police had accorded sanction for joint Disciplinary proceeding against both the petitioners by an order dated NIL October, 2018. By order dated 02.04.2019, an Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioners. By order dated 02.04.2019, an Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioners. Accordingly, the Enquiry officer has submitted the Enquiry report dated 07.09.2019 wherein the petitioners have been found guilty of violation of Rule 4 (1)(i) (ii) and (iii) of the Nagaland Government Servant Conduct Rules 1968. By Memorandum dated 19.11.2019, the petitioners were given opportunities to submit written representations on the proposed penalty within a period of 15(fifteen) days and in compliance, the petitioners had submitted their representations with a prayer to drop the charges and to quash the proposal of penalty of dismissal from service as they were the sole bread earners in the family. Thereafter, upon considering the Enquiry report and the petitioners representations, the Disciplinary Authority by order dated 13.03.2020 in exercise of power conferred by the Nagaland Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1967 imposed the penalty of withholding of increments for 2 (two) years with cumulative effect and re-instated them into service with immediate effect and the period of suspension was treated as such and not entitled for pay and allowances for the suspension period, without break of service for pension. 23. The learned Government Advocate submits that the impugned order dated 13.03.2020 and the order of the appellate authority dated 26.08.2025 were passed basing on the Enquiry report dated 07.09.2019 upon conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioners. However, till date, the petitioners have not challenged the departmental proceedings nor the Enquiry report and even in the instant petitions, the Enquiry report and the disciplinary proceedings are not under challenge. The learned Government Advocate submits that the criminal case and the disciplinary proceedings were conducted independently and the disciplinary proceeding was already concluded when the criminal case against the petitioners came to a close by order dated 30.04.2024. As such, the departmental enquiry and the criminal proceedings being distinct and different proceedings, discharge in the criminal case would not amount to closure or culmination of the departmental proceedings in favor of the delinquent employee since, the nature of proceedings is distinct and different. Learned Government Advocate further submits that it is settled law that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the penalty imposed by a disciplinary authority is limited. 24. Learned Government Advocate further submits that it is settled law that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the penalty imposed by a disciplinary authority is limited. 24. Learned Government Advocate has relied on the following cases in support of his submissions:- i. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. P. ZADENGA reported in (2023) 10 SCC 675 . ii. DIRECTOR GENERTAL OF POLICE, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE AND OTHERS VS. RAJENDRA KUMAR DUBEY reported in (2021) 14 SCC 735 , and iii. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. K.S. VISHWANATH reported in (2022) 15 SCC 190 . 25. Relying on the aforementioned authorities, the learned Government Advocate submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said cases held that acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising the power to conduct departmental proceedings in accordance with the rules or regulations. The 2 (two) proceedings, criminal and departmental are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. In the disciplinary proceeding, the question is whether the employee is guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser punishment, as the case maybe, whereas in the criminal proceedings, the question is whether the offences registered against him under the PC Act or IPC are established, and if established what sentence should be imposed upon him. The standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules governing enquiry and trial in both the cases are significantly distinct and different. Further relying on the case of K.S. VISHWANATH (Supra), learned Government Advocate has submitted that this Court cannot sit as a court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. This Court is only concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. And that it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a Writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding of the evidence. 26. Learned Government Advocate therefore, submits that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 26. Learned Government Advocate therefore, submits that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submits that in fact, the petitioners have been imposed a minor penalty under Rule-7 of the Nagaland (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1967. He prays that the 2 (two) writ petitions may therefore be dismissed as having no merit. 27. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the pleadings as well as the authorities relied upon by the parties. 28. Upon going through the order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class in G.R Case No. 96/2018 arising out of Kohima South PS Case No. 00021/2018, it is seen that the petitioners had been charged under Section 420 IPC R/W Sections 7/13 (2) of the PC Act. The learned Trial Court had discharged the petitioners on the ground that there were no witnesses listed in the chargesheet to substantiate the charges under Section 420 IPC against the accused persons/petitioners. And further on the ground that, the statements of the arrest witnesses under Sections 161 CrPC did not disclose any material substance to incriminate the petitioners under Section 420 IPC. The trial Court also held that the court did not have the jurisdiction to take up cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act as it was not a designated Special Court. On such technical grounds, the petitioners were discharged from the criminal case. On the other hand, a perusal of the Enquiry report dated 07.09.2019 would show that the charges against the petitioners were framed for lack of devotion of duty, failure to maintain integrity and behaving in a manner un-becoming of a government servant. The charges against the petitioners were for promising employment to people in exchange of money, for forging the signature of superior officers and also for utilizing the services of subordinates to carry out illegal activities. The Enquiry officer found that the Articles of charge Nos. (I) and (III) were proved against the petitioner in WP(C)/203/2025 and Article of Charge No. (I) was proved against the petitioner in WP(C)/204/2025. It is also noted that the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings were conducted on different premises and on different charges. The Enquiry officer found that the Articles of charge Nos. (I) and (III) were proved against the petitioner in WP(C)/203/2025 and Article of Charge No. (I) was proved against the petitioner in WP(C)/204/2025. It is also noted that the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings were conducted on different premises and on different charges. This Court has also found that the petitioners have not assailed the Enquiry report nor the disciplinary proceedings. Another pertinent fact is that the Disciplinary Proceedings were concluded and minor penalty imposed on the petitioners long before they were discharged in the criminal case. 29. When a departmental proceeding is properly held, in accordance with the rule, the departmental authority is the sole judge of the facts, and if there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a writ petition. Even assuming that the petitioners had challenged the departmental proceedings on the ground that the departmental proceedings and the criminal case were based on the same set of facts, the judgment relied upon by the petitioners can be differentiated from the instant cases in view of the fact that in Ram Lal (Supra) as well as in CAPT. M. PAUL ANTHONY (Supra), the appellants had been dismissed from service, after being acquitted in the criminal cases whereas in the instant cases only minor penalty was imposed and the petitioners discharge in the criminal case was on technical grounds. In WP(C)/236/2021 also, the departmental enquiry instituted against the petitioner had been dropped for failing to prove the charges, but in the instant cases the charges were proved. Hence, the authorities relied upon by the petitioners does not support the petitioners cases in any way. Be that as it may, this Court has already held that the criminal proceedings and the departmental proceedings in the instant writ petitions were conducted on entirely distinct and different charges. As it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of K.S.VISHWANATH (Supra), this Court cannot sit as a court of Appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. As it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of K.S.VISHWANATH (Supra), this Court cannot sit as a court of Appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. It is not the function of this Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review the finding of the disciplinary authority or to arrive at a different conclusion/finding or to modify the penalty imposed even in a case where the disciplinary proceedings and the Enquiry report have been challenged by the petitioner which has not been done in the instant writ petitions. In fact the departmental proceedings and the Enquiry Report which are the basis of the impugned orders have not been assailed. 30. In view of the above findings and observations, the impugned orders are not interfered with as this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the writ petitions. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed.