Page No.# 1/16 GAHC020001392025 2026:GAU-NL:273 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/50/2025 SHRI LANUTOSHI S/O LT. SENDONGYANGER, R/O UNGMA VILLAGE, DISTRICT MOKOKCHUNG, NAGALAND VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND 2:THE HOME COMMISSIONER GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND 3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE NAGALAND KOHIMA 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MOKOKCHUNG NAGALAN Advocate for the Petitioner : TOSHI O. LONGKUMER, Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, Page No.# 2/16 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV) Date : 18-05-2026 Heard Mr. Toshi O Longkumer, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Ayemi, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents. 2. The challenge in this present writ petition is to an order dated 30.11.2023, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Mokokchung, Nagaland imposing the penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner on conclusion of a departmental proceeding instituted against him. 3. The facts in brief requisite for adjudication of the issues arising in the present writ petition is noticed as under. 4. The petitioner was issued with a show cause notice requiring him to explain with regard to his consumption, use and procurement of Narcotic substances. While such show cause notice was pending, the petitioner was arrested on 01.07.2023, in connection with Mokokchung PS case no. 12/2023 registered under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act basing on an allegation of possession of contraband substances. On the petitioner being placed under detention, the Superintendent of Police, Mokokchung, Nagaland vide order dated Page No.# 3/16 03.07.2023, proceeded to place the petitioner under suspension pending drawal of departmental proceeding against him. Thereafter, a Memorandum of Charge dated 04.07.2023, came to be issued to the petitioner framing 2 (two) Article of Charge, therein. On the same date, vide an order dated 04.07.2023, the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner proceeded to direct for holding of an enquiry with regard to the charges framed against the petitioner vide the Memorandum of Charge dated 04.07.2023 and for that purpose appointed an Enquiry Officer as well as a Presenting Officer. It is to be noted that at that relevant point of time, the petitioner in connection with police case instituted against him, was behind the bars. 5. It is projected in the writ petition that although the petitioner was behind bars, he had prepared a written statement of defence against the said Memorandum of Charge dated 04.07.2023, however, he was not allowed to submit the same by the Disciplinary Authority. It is projected that an enquiry was held within the jail premises, wherein, the petitioner was so detained and on conclusion of the said enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report in the matter holding the charges levelled against the petitioner to have been established. The Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, on a perusal of the said Enquiry report, without, however, forwarding a copy thereof to the petitioner, proceeded vide the order dated 30.11.2023, to concur with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and thereby, held the charges levelled against the petitioner vide the Memorandum of Charge dated 04.07.2023 to have been established. Page No.# 4/16 6. Basing on the said conclusion, the petitioner came to be imposed with the penalty of dismissal from service. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation dated 11.03.2025 before the Director General of Police, Nagaland praying for revocation of the order of penalty on the ground that he was not given all due opportunity to defend his case during the enquiry. The said representation, however, not being considered, the petitioner had instituted the present proceeding. 7. Mr. Toshi O Longkumer, learned counsel for the petitioner by reiterating the facts noted, herein above, at the outset has submitted that although the enquiry was conducted in the presence of the petitioner, the said enquiry was so conducted within the jail premises. He submits that the petitioner had participated in the enquiry, however, he being under detention, it cannot be expected that the petitioner had so participated in the enquiry with a free mind. 8. Mr. Longkumer, learned counsel submits that the Enquiry Officer while carrying out the enquiry had not permitted the petitioner to cross-examine the departmental witnesses deposing in the matter. He submits that the Enquiry Officer had thereafter, submitted an Enquiry report holding the charges levelled against the petitioner to have been established. However, the Disciplinary Authority had not forwarded a copy of the Enquiry Report to the petitioner, herein, as mandated under the provisions of Rule 10 (iii) of the Nagaland Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1967. He submits that in Page No.# 5/16 absence of the Enquiry report, and copies of the deposition of witnesses, as well as the documents exhibited in the enquiry, a prejudice has occasioned to the petitioner in preferring an appeal in the matter. He submits that in terms of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court holding the field, the Enquiry report is to be furnished to the petitioner prior to a consideration thereof, being made by the Disciplinary Authority for imposition of a penalty. 9. Mr. Toshi O. Longkumer, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that vide the Memorandum of Charge dated 04.07.2023, the charges framed against the petitioner was with regard to possession of 09.27 grams of suspected Brown Sugar (Sunflower). Mr. Longkumer, learned counsel by referring to the Enquiry report, now brought on record by the State respondents in their affidavit, submits that the Enquiry Officer in the said report has not dealt with the said charge. There is no finding recorded that the said charge stood established against the petitioner. Mr. Longkumer, learned counsel by taking this Court through the findings of the Enquiry Officer has submitted that the allegations proved against the petitioner was different from that was so alleged against him in the Memorandum of Charge dated 04.07.2023. He submits that the charge framed against the petitioner at best can be said to be one of consumption of contraband substances. However, he submits that there was no allegation levelled against the petitioner in this connection in the Memorandum of Charge dated 04.07.2023. 10. Mr. Longkumer, learned counsel has further submitted that Page No.# 6/16 from the materials produced in the present proceedings, it would be evident that the Forensic Laboratory Report with regard to the substance purportedly recovered from the petitioner was so received on 18.03.2024, by the respondent authorities, and the enquiry conducted in the matter against the petitioner had concluded on 01.09.2023. Accordingly, he submits that in the enquiry there was not material brought on record to establish that the contraband substance recovered from the petitioner was actually Brown Sugar (Heroin). 11. Having made the above submission, Mr. Longkumer, learned counsel has further submitted that the provisions of the Rules of 1967, more particularly Rule 9, thereof, mandates that the Disciplinary Authority shall frame definite charge on the basis of the allegations existing against the delinquent and shall serve a copy of such charges together with the statement of allegation of which they are based to the delinquent, who would now be required to submit a written statement of defence in the matter. He submits that for the purpose of preparation of a written statement, the delinquent is also entitled to pray for inspection of the listed documents. He submits that in terms of the provision of 9 (4) of the Rules of 1967, the Disciplinary Authority on receipt of the written statement of defence, may itself inquire into such charges as are not admitted by the delinquent or if it considers necessary to do so, appoint a Board or Enquiry or Enquiry Officer. 12. Mr. Longkumer, learned counsel submits that steps for arriving Page No.# 7/16 at a decision as to whether an enquiry is mandated in the matter would be required to be taken only after the submission of a written statement in his defence by the delinquent, within the time frame prescribed, and/or non submission of such written statement within such time as may be prescribed by the Disciplinary authority in the Memorandum of Charge. He submits that in the case of the petitioner along with the Memorandum of Charge dated 04.07.2023 issued to him, the order directing for holding an enquiry, coupled with appointing of the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer also came to be issued to the petitioner, which he contends to reflect the pre-determined mind of the respondent authorities to hold the petitioner guilty, and impose upon him a major penalty. 13. Per contra, Ms. A. Ayemi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has submitted that the Memorandum of Charge dated 04.07.2023, was duly served upon the petitioner in the jail premises. The petitioner was also served with the copy of the order directing for holding of enquiry in the matter. He submits that the petitioner did not object to such departmental proceeding being instituted against him while he was under detention. It is submitted that the petitioner had never submitted a written statement of defence in the matter and accordingly, on conclusion of the period for submission of such written statement of defence, also in view of the fact that there was no prayer for such extension of time, the authorities proceeded to approach the jurisdictional Chief Judicial Magistrate with a prayer to permit conduct of such departmental enquiry against the petitioner within the jail premises, Page No.# 8/16 wherein, he was so detained. 14. The learned Government Advocate submits that enquiry was held on 20.08.2023, 26.08.2023 and 01.09.2023, and the petitioner had never objected to the conduct of such proceeding within the jail premises. It is submitted that the witnesses were so examined in the presence of the petitioner, and the petitioner had not sought for cross-examination of the departmental witnesses who had deposed in the enquiry. It is submitted by referring to the statements made by the petitioner in the enquiry that the petitioner had admitted to the charges levelled against him vide Memorandum of Charge dated 04.07.2023. It is submitted that the statements as adduced by the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer clearly brings out the guilt of the petitioner and accordingly, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in his Enquiry report being based on the materials coming on record in the enquiry, would not mandate any interference. The learned Government Advocate further submits that petitioner during his deposition having admitted to drug abuse, the charge levelled against the petitioner stands proved and for that matter, the absence of the expert opinion with regard to the substance recovered from the petitioner would be of no consequence. 15. The learned Government Advocate for the respondents further submits that the petitioner although had the opportunity to prefer an appeal against the penalty imposed upon him, such appeal was not preferred by the petitioner and he had after lapse of 1 year 4 months, submitted a prayer petition to the Director General of Page No.# 9/16 Police, Nagaland for reversal of his order of dismissal, which was not in terms of the provisions of the Rules of 1967. The learned Government Advocate for the respondents further submits that the petitioner having not objected to the conduct of departmental proceeding in the jail premises during the period of his detention, therein, the said issue cannot now be permitted to be urged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. It is submitted that there is no pleadings also brought on record in this connection. It is submitted that no prejudice having been caused to the petitioner on account of conduct of such enquiry within the jail premises, the said contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not mandate acceptance from this Court. 16. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 17. The backdrop leading to the institution of departmental proceeding against the petitioner has been noticed, herein above, and the same not being disputed is not reiterated. The petitioner vide Memorandum of Charge dated 04.07.2023, was charged with two articles of charge. The charges framed against the petitioner as evident from the Statement of Articles of Charges appended to the Memorandum of Charge dated 04.07.2023, being relevant, is extracted herein below:- “ STATEMENT OF ARTICLE OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST NO. 3947 ABC LANUTOSHI (U/S) OF DEF MOKOKCHUNG. Page No.# 10/16 ARTICLE-1 No. 3947 ABC Lanutoshi (U/S) of RHQ Mokokchung was arrested on 01/07/2023 in connection with Police Station-1 Mokokchung Case No. 0012/23 U/S 21 (b) NDPS Act for possession of 09.27 grams of suspected Brown Sugar (Sunflower) which indicate his failure to maintain absolute integrity, lack of devotion to duty and unbecoming of a Government Servant. Therefore, he is charged for violation of Rule (4) (1) sub-clause (i) (ii) and (iii) of the Nagaland Government Servant conduct Rules 1968. ARTICLE-II No. 3947 ABC Lanutoshi-(U/S) of RHQ Mokokchung being a member of a disciplined. force is bound to strictly adhere to the laid down rules of the force and maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. However, he has acted in a manner unbecoming of a member of a disciplined force by involving in criminal case vide Police Station-I Mokokchung Case No. 0012/23 U/S 21 (b) NDPS Act and subsequent his arrest on 01/07/2023. Therefore, he is charged for violation of Rule (4) (1) sub-clause (i) (ii) and (iii) of the Nagaland Government Servant conduct Rules 1968.” 18. A perusal of the Article of Charge No. I would reveal that it was alleged against the petitioner, therein, that he was arrested on 01.07.2023, in connection with Police Station-I, Mokokchung case no. 001/2023 under section 21 (b) NDPS, for possession of 09.27 grams of suspected brown sugar (sunflower). While a perusal of Article of Charge no. II, would reveal that it was alleged that the petitioner being a member of a discipline force having got involved in criminal proceedings, he had acted in a manner unbecoming of the member of the disciplined force. Page No.# 11/16 19. The Enquiry report has been brought on record by the respondents in the affidavit filed by them. On a perusal of the said Enquiry report, it is seen that the enquiry was spread over 3 (three) days, i.e., 20.08.2023, 26.08.2023 and 01.09.2023. From the report, it is also revealed that departmental witnesses had deposed in support of the charges framed against the petitioner, herein. The petitioner is also found to have participated in the enquiry proceeding. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer had recorded the following findings:- “Findings of the Enquiry Officer: 1) An FIR was filed at PS-I and a regular case vide PS-1 MkgC/No.012/23 dated 02/07/2023 u/s 21(b) NDPS Act was registered at PS-I Mokokchung against the delinquent No. 3947 ABC Lanutoshi (U/S) of RHQ DEF Mokokchung. 2) The statements of all the witnesses corroborates with each other, hence the involvement of the delinquent is established beyond doubt. 3) The delinquent No. 3947 ABC Lanutoshi (U/S) admitted to his involvement in the abuse of drugs all the 3 (three) different occasions (preliminary hearing. 2nd Hearing and 3rd Hearing). 4) The delinquent No. 3947 ABC Lanutoshi (U/S) of RHQ DEF Mokokchung being a member of a disciplined force is bound to strictly adhere to the laid down rules of the force and maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. However, he acted in a manner unbecoming of a member of a disciplined force by actively involving himself in politics. Thereby he has violated Rule (4) (1) sub-clause (1) (11) and (iii) of the Nagaland Government Servant Conduct Rules 1968.” 20. In view of the said findings, the Enquiry Officer proceeded to hold that the charges framed against the petitioner was established Page No.# 12/16 beyond reasonable doubt. 21. As noticed herein above, the allegations against the petitioner is with regard to possession of suspected brown sugar (sunflower), this Court on a perusal of the Enquiry report does not find that the Enquiry Officer had come to the conclusion from the materials coming on record in the enquiry, that it was established that the substance recovered from the petitioner was in fact brown sugar. In absence of a conclusion being drawn by the Enquiry Officer that the substance recovered from the petitioner was in fact a contraband substance, the specific charge under Article of Charge No. I, levelled against the petitioner cannot be held to have been established. The Article of Charge No. II being nothing but a derivative of the Charge no. I, the same in absence of the main ingredient of Article of Charge No. I, being established in the enquiry also cannot be held to have been established. 22. From the findings of the Enquiry Officer extracted herein above, this Court finds that the Enquiry Officer had drawn a conclusion to the effect that the petitioner had admitted to his involvement in abuse of drugs. The same may be a factor which can be held against the petitioner, more so, when he is a member of the disciplined force, but for the purpose of the disciplinary proceeding instituted against him, such conclusion would be of no consequence, inasmuch as the corresponding charge levelled against the petitioner in the Memorandum of Charge dated 04.07.2023, was not established. Page No.# 13/16 23. A perusal of the finding No. 4 of the Enquiry Report reveals that the Enquiry Officer had drawn a conclusion that the petitioner was actively involving himself in politics, the same may be a typographical error, but the same also reflects the fact that the enquiry was conducted in a casual manner without appreciating the actual charge framed against the petitioner, herein. 24. At this stage, this Court would consider the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Nagaland, Dimapur dated 08.03.2024, placed on record by the learned Government Advocate. A perusal of the said report would reveal that the sample taken purportedly form the possession of the petitioner on examination was found to be Diacetyl Morphin (Heroin). As noticed herein above, the enquiry against the petitioner had concluded on 01.09.2023 and the penalty was imposed upon him on 30.11.2023. Accordingly, neither during the enquiry held against the petitioner, nor on the date the disciplinary authority had passed the order dated 30.11.2023, the report of Forensic Science Laboratory was available before the respondent authorities inasmuch as the same was forwarded to the respondent authorities only on 18.03.2024. 25. Accordingly, the conclusion reached by this Court, herein above, that the charge of the petitioner being in possession of the suspected brown sugar admittedly was not established in the enquiry, inasmuch as, the said charge could have been so established only after receipt of the expert opinion from the jurisdictional Forensic Science Laboratory. The findings of the Page No.# 14/16 Enquiry Officer admittedly reveals that during the enquiry it had come on record that the petitioner was in habit of drug abuse. However, the same not being a charge framed against the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer could have drawn the conclusions, thereon, only after the charge with regard to the same was so framed against the petitioner, if required by way of issuance of Additional Show Cause Notice. In the case on hand, no such Additional Charge came to be drawn against the petitioner. Accordingly, it is found that the Enquiry Officer ignoring the charge framed against the petitioner, proceeded to draw the conclusion in his Enquiry report with regard to the charges for which the petitioner was never charged with and/or un- connected with the charges framed against the petitioner. 26. Accordingly, this Court if of the considered opinion that from the findings of the Enquiry Officer extracted, herein above, it cannot be held that the charges originally framed against the petitioner in the Memorandum of Charge dated 04.07.2023, was established. 27. The Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of imposition of the penalty of dismissal upon the petitioner vide order dated 30.11.2023, having concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, and this Court having found such findings of the Enquiry Officer to be perverse, the basis of imposition of the penalty upon the petitioner having being vitiated, the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner vide the order dated 30.11.2023 would not mandate an acceptance from this Court. Page No.# 15/16 28. For the reasons assigned herein above, the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 30.11.2023, stands set aside. The petitioner is directed to be re-instituted in his service and shall be deemed to have continued under suspension w.e.f. 30.11.2023, in continuation of the suspension ordered in respect of the petitioner vide order dated 03.07.2023. As this Court has found the penalty imposed upon the petitioner not to be sustainable in absence of a finding to the effect that the ingredients of Article of Charge No. I as framed against the petitioner stood established, the other grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present proceeding is not being examined by this Court. 29. This Court having interfered with the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner basing on a technicality, this Court also having directed that the petitioner shall continue under suspension, this Court grants liberty to the respondent authorities to proceed denovo against the petitioner basing on the charges framed against him vide the Memorandum of Charge dated 04.07.2023 from the stage pursuant to issuance of the same. The petitioner shall now be permitted to submit his written statement in the matter and the Disciplinary Authority shall, thereafter, follow the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1967. As the petitioner is now being deemed to have been under suspension, the petitioner would be entitled to his subsistence allowances w.e.f. 30.11.2023. The respondent authorities to compute the arrears of such subsistence allowance, and release the same to the petitioner within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Page No.# 16/16 However, the current subsistence allowance w.e.f. the month of May, 2026, be duly released to the petitioner. 30. The materials brought on record having also demonstrated that the petitioner was involved in drug abuse, considering the fact that he is a member of a disciplined force, the respondents are granted liberty to also proceed against the petitioner for the same by drawing charges in this connection through issuance of Additional Show Cause Notice to him in this connection. 31. With the above observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant