Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010184822026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1211/2026 SRI ARUP KUMAR AHMED SON OF SRI MOHAMMAD HAZARAT ALI, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 13, ELLORA UPA PATH, HATIGAON CHARIALI, P.S. HATIGAON, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM-781038. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:THE PROJEC DIRECTOR DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY NALBARI NALBARI NALBARI MAIN ROAD NALBARI ASSAM-781335 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K P PATHAK, MR BHARGAV DAS,MR. C PAUL,MS. SANSKRITI BARUA,MR. I KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 02.09.2026 Heard Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this application filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the proceeding in PRC Case No. 51/2026 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalbari arising out of Mukalmua P.S. Case No. 179/2009. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the FIR as well as the resultant charge sheet with the further prayer that the cognizance order may also be quashed. 3. The case of the petitioner is that an FIR was lodged on 24.12.2009 by the Project Director of DRDA, Nalbari stating inter alia that some fraudulent withdrawal of scheme money and passing of false inflated bills and production of some blank cash memos were reported and as such he gave the First Information Report about suspected scheme fund from being divested. As such, a prayer is made to investigate the whole financial scam against the petitioner and others. It is also the case of the petitioner that pursuant to lodging of the FIR, the departmental proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner and the show cause notice was issued to him on 16.08.2010, wherein four numbers of charges, were stipulated. The first charge was in respect of huge money being drawn through self drawn cheque without disbursing the same to contractors or suppliers. Charge no.2 was in respect of while he was serving as a Junior Engineer of the said block, he in collision with the BDO procured Page No.# 3/6 materials in violation of the guidelines of MNREGA. The third charge was in respect of forgery of records as well as manipulation with the intention of misappropriating and shiphoning of Government funds and the last charge being charge no.4 was in respect of falsification of records with ulterior motive of personal gain. The petitioner was also given the statement of allegations on the same date. The petitioner, thereafter, states that an inquiry was conducted and on 12.03.2013, he was exonerated of all the charges leveled against him. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in respect of all the four charges, the petitioner was exonerated. It was reflected in the order dated 12.03.2013 that the inquiry report reflected that the Inquiry Officer could not prove the charges against the petitioner, as such he was exonerated and the period of suspension was treated as on duty for all purposes by the said order. However, after around 12 years of the said exoneration, the police had submitted charge sheet against the petitioner on 26.12.2025 arraying the petitioner as an accused person and on the ground that materials were found against the accused person during investigation. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the said charge sheet was submitted before the Court and summons were issued to the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner challenged the continuation of the said PRC Case mainly on three grounds, first that the petitioner was exonerated in his departmental proceeding and there will be very less chances that the prosecution would be able to prove the charges against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. Secondly, there was no prosecution sanction submitted by the prosecution before the cognizance of offence was taken against him and thirdly, the FIR was lodged in 2009 and the charge sheet came to be submitted in the Page No.# 4/6 year 2025 i.e. after a period of almost 17 years. The learned Counsel has submitted a decision to substantiate his point passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PS Rajya Vs. State of Bihar, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had stated that when the departmental proceeding resulted in exoneration of the accused person, which is based on preponderance of probability, there will be very less likelihood that the accused person would be found guilty in the criminal proceeding, which is based on proof beyond reasonable doubt. 6. Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the investigation was carried on after the FIR was lodged and on finding sufficient materials against the petitioner, the charge sheet was submitted. 7. I have heard the learned Counsels and also have gone through the records. It is seen that the FIR that was lodged in the year 2009 was based on a report obtained by the Project Director, DRDA, Nalbari and the alleged offence reported to the police was only on the basis of suspicion. It is clearly stated that there was apprehension on the part of the informant that some funds were misappropriated by the employees of Barkhetri Development Block. The allegation was made against the petitioner and one another. Thereafter, it is seen that the petitioner was put under suspension and the inquiry proceeding was conducted by giving him the show cause along with the statement of allegations. It is also noticed that pursuant to the said show cause, the petitioner had submitted his written statement and that the Inquiry Officer upon examining the written statement as well as the materials on record, conducted the inquiry into the charges leveled against the petitioner and it is clearly stated therein i.e. the order dated 12.03.2013 that Inquiry Officer could not get any Page No.# 5/6 materials against the petitioner and the charges could not be proved and on that basis, the disciplinary authority had held the departmental proceeding against the petitioner be dropped by exonerating him from the charges. 8. It is a settled position of law that the standard of proof in departmental proceeding is based on preponderance of probabilities, which is less strict than the standard of proof used in criminal cases i.e. proof beyond reasonable doubt and by applying the said standard of proof, which is much less in strictness, the petitioner was exonerated. It is seen that the criminal case was also based on the same charges from which the petitioner was exonerated and the police upon investigation, submitted charge sheet after 16 years. A bare perusal of the charge sheet shows that a number of cash memos and cash books were seized by the police during investigation and on sending the same for FSL examination, it was found that signatures of other accused person was found in the said documents along with signatures of one Richand Ahmed, BDO and that the petitioner's signatures were found on the backside of the cash memos of one S.A. Enterprise and cash memo of "Nalbari Nursery" under head name of work. It is also seen from the contents of the charge sheet that the alleged actions were in discharge of the official duty. However, the prosecution sanction did not find place while cognizance of offence under Section 420/468/409 read With Section 34 of IPC was taken against the petitioner. It cannot be loss sight of the fact that the petitioner was exonerated of his charges in the departmental proceeding way back in 2013 and all the documents that were seized by the police were in fact examined by the Inquiry Officer and on failure to find any incriminating materials against the petitioner, he was exonerated. It is held by the Supreme Court that when the accused person is exonerated in departmental Page No.# 6/6 proceeding which is based on the standard of proof of preponderance of probabilities, proving the offence against the accused person in a criminal case based on the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt is almost unlikely. Moreover, there is a big delay in filing the charge sheet, which is not of one or two years but of 16/17 years. The petitioner is stated to have superannuated on 31.01.2026 and it is also noticed that the petitioner has been receiving the pension as per law. 9. In view of the observations, this Court deems it fit to quash the FIR being Mukalmua P.S. Case No. 179/2009 along with charge sheet being charge sheet No. 283 submitted on 26.12.2025 together with the continuance of the PRC Case No. 51/2026 as well as all other orders passed in the subsequent orders, qua the petitioner namely Arup Kumar Ahmed. 10. As such, the FIR, charge sheet, the PRC Case and subsequent proceedings qua the petitioner stands quashed. 11. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant