Page No.# 1/12 GAHC010212562025 2026:GAU-AS:7410 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7479/2025 MD NUR ISLAM ALI AND 2 ORS. S/O LATE NACHIM ALI RESIDENT OF GARIGAON FANCIPARA P.S. - JALUKBARI GUWAHATI- 781037 DISTRICT - KAMRUP M ASSAM. EX- DRIVER CONSTABLE /57 PHONE NO 7099522161 2: SRI BHUPEN BORA S/O LATE GOLAP BORA R/O VILLAGE MELENG DOLAIGAON P. S. - TEOK DISTRICT - JORHAT ASSAM. EX-UB CONSTABLE /741 3: SRI SRINATH PATHAK S/O LATE RAMASHIS PATHAK R/O VILLAGE DULHIGANJ P. S. - JAGDISHPUR DISTRICT - BHOJPUR BIHAR. EX- UB CONSTABLE /695 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI781006 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE Page No.# 2/12 ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781007. 3:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE EASTERN RANGE JORHAT ASSAM. 4:THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE JORHAT ASSAM. ------------ Advocate for : MR. D C C PHUKAN Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 25.05.2026 None appears for the petitioners on call. Also heard Mr. D. Borah, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent nos.1, 2, 3 and 4. 2. The petitioners have joined together in the present writ petition to assail orders dated 31.07.2025 and 18.08.2025 issued in their respective cases upholding the order of dismissal from service imposed upon them. 3. The facts in brief requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present writ petition is noticed, as under; Page No.# 3/12 In pursuance to a custodial death of one Shariful Hussain, who was taken into custody in connection with a theft case on 26.08.1994, a case of unnatural death was registered. Thereafter, an enquiry was held and on the basis of materials coming on record in the said enquiry, an FIR came to be lodged against the petitioners and others on 18.02.1995, alleging therein, that the death of the victim was caused on account of the negligence on the part of the petitioners, herein. The said FIR was registered as Mariani P.S. Case No.17/1995. In the meantime, the respondent authorities instituted a Departmental proceedings against each of the petitioners involved in the present proceedings. Against the petitioner no.1 DP No.04/2000 was instituted, while DP No.03/2000 was instituted against the petitioner no.2 and DP No.05/2000 was so instituted against the petitioner no.3. On conclusion of the said Departmental proceedings, the petitioner no.1 was discharged from the charges framed against him, therein. With regard to petitioner nos.2 and 3, a penalty of withholding of 02 (two) increments with cumulative effect came to be so imposed. On conclusion of the Trial, the Trial Court proceeded vide Judgment dated 30.04.2011, to convict the petitioners, herein, under Section 201 IPC and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 (two) years along with fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) each, in default to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for 1 (one) month for the offence under Section 201 IPC. The conviction of the petitioners, having come to the knowledge of the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioners, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded vide order dated 27.05.2011, to impose upon the petitioners a penalty of Page No.# 4/12 dismissal from service w.e.f. 02.05.2011. The said penalty imposed upon the petitioners was so imposed basing on the conviction of the petitioners by the learned Trial Court. The petitioners being aggrieved by their conviction and sentencing by the learned Trial Court, assailed the same before this Court by way of filing an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.103/2011. This Court vide order dated 21.05.2025, proceeded to dispose of the said appeal by interfering with the conviction and sentencing of the petitioners so effected vide Judgment & Order dated 30.04.2011, passed by the learned Trial Court in Sessions Case No.93 (JJ)/2000. The petitioners accordingly, were acquitted from the Criminal charges framed against them. The petitioner nos.1 and 2, thereafter submitted individual representations before the respondent no.3, inter alia, praying for service benefit w.e.f. 02.05.2011, along with arrear salaries and other benefit. The representation submitted by the petitioner no.1 was registered as Appeal Case No.06/2025, while the representation preferred by petitioner no.2 was registered as Appeal Case No.05/2025. The representation submitted by petitioner no.3 on similar lines before the respondent no.2, was disposed of by the Disciplinary Authority by directing, therein, that he may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Authority. The appeal filed by the petitioner nos.1 and 2 thereafter, was considered and rejected by the respondent no.3 vide orders dated 18.08.2025. Being aggrieved the petitioners have instituted the present writ petition. 4. Mr. D. Borah, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State Respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4, submits that mere acquittal of the petitioners would not have an automatic effect of rendering the orders dated 27.05.2011, imposing upon the petitioners Page No.# 5/12 the penalty of dismissal from service, to be not maintainable. It is submitted that the petitioners would not be entitled to any service benefits, inasmuch as, this Court vide Judgment & Order dated 21.05.2025, passed in Criminal Appeal No.103/2011, while proceeding to interfere with the conviction and sentencing of the petitioners as ordered by the learned Trial Court vide the Judgment & Order dated 30.04.2011 in Sessions Case No.93(JJ)/2000, had not made any observation with regard to the service status of the petitioners after they were acquitted from the charges framed against them in the connected criminal proceedings. Mr. D. Borah, submits that the respondent authorities after considering all aspects of the matter had passed a reasoned order vide the orders dated 18.08.2025 in respect of the petitioner nos.1 and 2, and the same would not mandate an interference from this Court. In so far as the petitioner no.3 is concerned, it is submitted by Mr. D. Borah, that he having not preferred any appeal against the order dated 27.05.2011, the order of dismissal as effected in this case has attained its finality. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record. 6. The factual position noticed, hereinabove, are not in dispute. After the petitioners were involved in a criminal proceedings, a Departmental proceedings is also found to have been instituted against them. The said Departmental proceedings had concluded with no penalty being imposed upon the petitioner no.1, while with regard to the petitioner nos.2 and 3, a penalty of withholding of 02 (two) increments with cumulative effect came to be so leveled. Page No.# 6/12 7. From the materials available on record, it is evident that the penalty so imposed upon the petitioners was basing on allegation which also formed the allegation in the criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioners. However, what is to be noticed, herein, is that the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner nos.1 and 2 were on account of the negligence on the part of the petitioners in not taking due care and caution to save the life of the accused who were in police custody. The orders dated 27.05.2011 were however, not assailed by the petitioner nos.1 and2 either by way of filing an appeal and/or by instituting proceeding. The said orders dated 27.05.2011 are also not assailed in the present proceeding by the petitioner nos.1 and 2. 8. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court finds that the petitioners were convicted vide Judgment & Order dated 30.04.2011, by the learned Trial Court in Sessions Case No.93(JJ)/2000, under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC. Thereafter, vide order dated 30.04.2011, the petitioners were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 (two) years with a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand), in default, Simple Imprisonment for 1 (one) month for the offence under Section 201 IPC. The petitioners upon being convicted and sentenced by the learned Trial Court, the said decision having been brought to the knowledge of the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioners, the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioners vide orders dated 27.05.2011, proceeded to impose upon the petitioners the penalty of dismissal from service w.e.f 02.05.2011. 9. A perusal of the said order would go to reveal that the same were solely passed basing on the conviction of the petitioners and not on the basis of any conclusions arrived Page No.# 7/12 at in a Departmental proceedings instituted against the petitioners in the matter. The Departmental proceedings instituted against the petitioners in the matter were already closed. The petitioners being aggrieved by their conviction and sentencing by the learned Trial Court assailed the same before this Court by way of instituting an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.103/2011. This Court vide Judgment & Order dated 21.05.2025, upon appreciating the materials coming on record were pleased to set aside the Judgment & Order dated 30.04.2011, passed by the learned Trial Court in Sessions Case No.93(JJ)/2000. The petitioners, herein, were accordingly, acquitted from the charges framed against them, in the criminal case instituted against them along with the other co-accused. The petitioners on their acquittal from the criminal proceedings instituted against them had approached their Disciplinary Authority by way of filing representations, praying for being authorized their pension and pensionary benefits. The representation submitted by the petitioner nos.1 and 2 came to be placed before the Appellate Authority on 06.06.2025. The Appellate Authority considered the said representations submitted by the petitioner nos.1 and 2 to be an appeal against the order of dismissal. On such consideration being made, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 18.08.2025, proceeded to draw the following conclusions in respect of the petitioner no.1; “(i) A criminal case was registered at Mariani PS vide Case No. 17/1995 U/S 302 IPC against D-Const. 57 Nur Islam Ali and others. He was arrested during investigation on 12.01.2000 and remanded to judicial custody. (ii) Departmental Proceeding No. 04/2000 was drawn up against him vide DO No. 934 dated 28.03.2000. Page No.# 8/12 (iii) The said DP was disposed of vide DO No. 2148 dated 03.10.2007, imposing the punishment discharged of the charges. (iv) Following his conviction under Section 201 IPC in the same matter, he was dismissed from service w.e.f. 02.05.2011. (v) As per this office Letter No. DER/JHT/Appeal/590 dated 24.08.2012, the then DIGP (ER), Assam, Jorhat, rejected his earlier appeal for reinstatement owing to his conviction. (vi) The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, vide Order No. GAHC010006232011 dated 21.05.2025, set aside the judgment dated 30.04.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat, thereby acquitting the appellant. However, the Hon'ble High Court's order does not contain any direction regarding service- related benefits.” 10. In so far as the petitioner no.2 is concerned, the Appellate Authority vide an order dated 18.08.2025, had drawn the following conclusions; “(i) A criminal case was registered at Mariani PS vide Case No. 17/1995 U/S 302 IPC against Constable Bhupen Borah and others. He was arrested during investigation on 12.01.2000 and remanded to judicial custody. (ii) Departmental Proceeding No. 03/2000 was drawn up against him vide DO No. 934 dated 28.03.2000. (iii) The said DP was disposed of vide DO No. 2327 dated 25.10.2007, imposing the punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect. Page No.# 9/12 (iv) Following his conviction under Section 201 IPC in the same matter, he was dismissed from service w.e.f. 02.05.2011. (v) As per this office Letter No. DER/JHT/Appeal/590 dated 24.08.2012, the then DIGP (ER), Assam, Jorhat, rejected his earlier appeal for reinstatement owing to his conviction. (vi) The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, vide Order No. GAHC010006232011 dated 21.05.2025, set aside the judgment dated 30.04.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat, thereby acquitting the appellant. However, the Hon'ble High Court's order does not contain any direction regarding service- related benefits.” 11. Basing on the said conclusions drawn, the Appellate Authority further proceeded to hold that in terms of the Rules holding the field, dismissal from service having entailed forfeiture of all consequential benefits unless otherwise directed, held that this Court in the order passed in the criminal appeal being silent on the restoration of service benefits to the petitioners, the orders of dismissal from service were affirmed. 12. This Court has perused the orders dated 27.05.2011. The said orders were not orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority on conclusion of a Departmental proceedings instituted against the petitioners. The said orders were so issued only basing on the conviction of the petitioners in the criminal proceedings pending against them at the relevant point of time. The conviction of the petitioners having being interfered with subsequently by this Court in the Criminal Appeal No.103/2011, vide Judgment & Order dated 21.05.2025, the very basis for the imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service Page No.# 10/12 of the petitioners vide order dated 27.05.2011, stood removed. Although there is a delay in the petitioners approaching this Court after the passing of the order dated 27.05.2011, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the said delay cannot be attributed to the petitioners, inasmuch as, the challenge to the said orders would have been permissible only after the disposal of the appeal preferred in the matter by the petitioners against the Judgment & Order passed by the learned Trial Court, convicting and sentencing them. The said criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioners had resulted in their acquittal only with the passing of the Judgment & Order dated 21.05.2025, passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.103/2011. Accordingly, there is no delay found on the part of the petitioners in assailing the order of penalty of dismissal as imposed upon them in the matter. 13. Accordingly, in view of the said position, this Court would now examine the orders dated 18.08.2025, passed by the Appellate Authority in respect of the petitioner nos.1 and 2. The Appellate Authority in the said orders after noticing the various facts involved including the proceedings instituted against the petitioners had proceeded to reject the prayer of the petitioners for being authorized pension and pensionary benefits only on the ground that the Judgment & Order dated 21.05.2025, passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.103/2011, while acquitting the petitioners from the criminal charges framed against them had not passed any direction with regard to their service related benefits. The said contentions of the Appellate Authority is astonishing, inasmuch as, the Appellate Authority being a Senior Police Officer is expected to appreciate the jurisdiction of this Court while considering criminal proceedings. This Court in Criminal Appeal No.103/2011 was not Page No.# 11/12 considering the order of penalty as imposed upon the petitioners by the Departmental Authorities, but was only examining the validity of the Judgment & Order dated 30.04.2011, passed by the learned Trial Court in Sessions Case No.93(JJ)/2000, convicting and sentencing the petitioners under Section 201/304 (Part II) IPC. It is not expected that this Court while considering a conviction and sentencing of an accused would also be required to pass orders with regard to the service related benefits of the said accused person. This Court having interfered with the Judgment & Order dated 30.04.2011, in Sessions Case No.93(JJ)/2000 and acquitted the petitioners, the very basis for imposition of penalty upon the petitioners stood removed with retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f., 02.05.2011. Accordingly, it was for the Departmental Authorities to examine the matter and pass appropriate order as would be called for. The Departmental Authority is found to have miserably failed to act in the matter by applying known principles of law. 14. Be that as it may, the conviction and sentencing of the petitioners having been interfered with, this Court proceeds to set aside and quash the orders dated 27.05.2011 passed in respect of all the petitioners, along with the orders of the Appellate Authority dated 18.08.2025 in so far as it concerns the petitioner nos.1 and 2. 15. This Court having interfered with the penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the petitioners vide the said orders dated 27.05.2011, the present service status of the petitioners not being disclosed to this Court in the present proceedings, the respondent authorities are directed to pass consequential orders in the matter. In the event, any of the petitioners has not superannuated from their services, such petitioner be re-instated in his service and the pay and allowances of the petitioners w.e.f. Page No.# 12/12 02.05.2011, be fixed notionally. In the event, any or all of the petitioners have superannuated from their services during the pendency of the present proceedings and/or before the institution of the same, the pay of such petitioners w.e.f., 02.05.2011 be fixed notionally by providing for the annual increments receivable by the petitioners along with the Revision of Pay, if any, coming into effect during the said period. The pay of the petitioners on the date of their superannuation be accordingly fixed and their pension and pensionary benefits be processed and released to them. 16. The exercise now mandated to be carried out for compliance of the directions passed, hereinabove, in respect of each of the petitioners be initiated and concluded, with release of the consequential benefits to each of the petitioners, within a period of 03 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 17. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant