Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010139242026 2026:GAU- AS:10441-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/258/2026 SHRI LOHIT MIRDHA UBC/171, CONSTABLE, SON OF LATE SUMILAL MIRDHA, RESIDENT OF GARAJAN TEA ESTATE, POLICE STATION-BORHOLLA, POST OFFICE- GORAJAN, DISTRICT- JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785631 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI DISTRICT-KAMRUP M, PIN-781006 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTER ULUBARI, GUWAHATI DISTRICT-KAMRUP (M), PIN-781007 3:THE ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (HQ)/CRIME JORHAT, DISTRICT-JORHAT, PIN-785001 4:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ADMINISTRATION) ULUBARI, GUWAHATI, DISTRICT-KAMRUP M PIN-781007 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE JORHAT, DISTRICT-JORHAT PIN-78500 For the appellant/petitioner(s) :Mr. T. R. Deuri, Advocate For the Respondent(s) :Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, Addl. Sr. GA, Assam Page No.# 2/3 –B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 29.07.2026 (AshutoshKumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. T.R. Deuri, learned Advocate for the appellant, and Ms. M. Bhattachrjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, for the respondent/State. At the outset, Mr. Deuri has informed this Court that the name of the appellant has wrongly been stated as “Lohit Mirdha” in place of “Lolit Mirdha”, and has prayed for correction of the name of the appellant. Let the name of the appellant be read as “Lolit Mirdha” for the purpose of this appeal. The appellant has been dismissed from service after a departmental proceeding initiated and concluded against him, with the charge of having brought a woman in the night into a hotel room masquerading her as a relative and then making physical overtures bordering on sexual misdemeanor. In the departmental proceeding, the witnesses, including the prosecutrix supported the accusations against the appellant. The record further reveals that the appellant, after the misadventure, gave Rs. 500/- to the lady/prosecutrix and suggested her not to speak about the occurrence to anybody. Nothing further would be required to be noted so far as the facts of the case are concerned. However, shortly after his dismissal, and also the departmental Page No.# 3/3 appeal against such dismissal having been rejected, the appellant was acquitted in the criminal case lodged against him. The judgment of acquittal rested on a complete go-by regarding the allegationsmade by the prosecutrix, who was examined as the sole witness before the trial court; whereafter the case was closed and the appellant was acquitted. The appellant approached the learned Single Judge on the strength of the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the cases of G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat & Another, (2006) 5 SCC 446 and Ram Lal vs. State of Rajasthan, (2024) 1 SCC 175; claiming that with his acquittal by a criminal court, he was required to be reinstated in service. The learned Single Judge rejected such contention by making a distinction in the cases referred to above, from the case of the appellant. In fact, it was held by the learned Single Judge that in the departmental proceeding, evidence was galore regarding the misadventure of the appellant, which case was supported by the prosecutrix/victim. The mere fact that later she did not support the prosecution case before the criminal court would not be a ground for interference with the well decided departmental proceeding outcome, which was based on a different consideration than the criminal court. We find no reason for interference with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant