Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 9980 (GAU)

Tamijul Ali S/o Late Kadir Ali v. State of Assam

2026-02-02

Devashis Baruah

body2026
JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. M.P. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. J.K. Goswami, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of all the Respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the order of suspension dated 05.11.1999, the Show Cause Notice dated 06.01.2000, the Note Sheet dated 26.05.2004 as well as the order dated 25.04.2005 whereby the Petitioner was dismissed from service. 3. The case of the Petitioner herein is that an FIR was lodged against the Petitioner alleging that the Petitioner had committed a robbery on 04.11.1999 along with others at the residence of one Prabhu Dayal Beriwal. The said FIR was registered as Dibrugarh P.S. Case No.389/1999. On the basis of the said FIR, the Petitioner was arrested. Subsequently, the Petitioner was released on bail and it is alleged by the Petitioner that the Petitioner came learn from reliable sources that there was an order of shoot at sight. 4. Be that as it may, on the basis of the Petitioner’s arrest on 04.11.1999, the Petitioner was put under suspension vide an order dated 05.11.1999. Thereupon, a Departmental Proceedings was initiated. The Petitioner admittedly received the Show Cause Notice dated 06.01.2000 but he did not reply alleging that he feared. Thereupon, the Departmental Proceedings proceeded and the Petitioner was dismissed from service for his unauthorized absence vide an order dated 25.04.2005. 5. It is also relevant to note that, in the criminal proceedings which was initiated against the Petitioner, charge-sheet was filed and vide a judgment dated 27.05.2019, the Petitioner was acquitted. 6. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner submitted a representation to the Deputy Inspector General of Police to set aside the penalty of dismissal from service dated 25.04.2005. It is the further case of the Petitioner that the said representation was not considered and as such, the Petitioner had approached this Court. 7. This Court has perused the said representation which enclosed at Annexure-6 to the writ petition. It is surprising that the representation does not contain any date. Be that as it may, the writ petition was filed on 25.09.2025. 8. When the matter was taken up by this Court on 18.12.2025, the learned counsel who represented the Respondents sought for time to obtain instructions as regards the Appeal filed by the Petitioner. It is surprising that the representation does not contain any date. Be that as it may, the writ petition was filed on 25.09.2025. 8. When the matter was taken up by this Court on 18.12.2025, the learned counsel who represented the Respondents sought for time to obtain instructions as regards the Appeal filed by the Petitioner. Today, when the matter has been taken up, an instruction has been placed before this Court issued by the Assistant Inspector General of Police dated 20.01.2026. The said instruction is kept on record and marked with the letter “X”. 9. In terms with the said instruction kept on record and marked with the letter “X” it is mentioned that the document which was enclosed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition has been placed before this Court for the sake of initiating the litigation only. It is also mentioned that the Petitioner has misled this Court and committed perjury by filing the petition with a false document. In addition to that, it was also mentioned that no appeal was ever filed by the Petitioner and as such, the issue of disposal does not arise. 10. In view of the said instruction, this Court enquired with Mr. M.P. Sarma, the learned counsel for the Petitioner as to what is the date of Annexure-6. He submitted that the Annexure-6 was sent by post on 28.11.2025 and in that regard, the postal receipt was placed before this Court during the course of hearing. The said postal receipt is kept on record and marked with the letter “Y”. 11. This Court is perplexed and flabbergasted at the conduct of the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the Petitioner inasmuch as on one hand the Petitioner had enclosed the representation as Annexure-6 to the writ petition and filed the writ petition on 25.09.2025 and on the other hand, the learned counsel for the Petitioner placed before this Court a postal receipt dated 28.11.2025 to show when the representation was posted. It therefore appears that what is alleged by the Respondents in the document kept on record and marked with the letter “X” is apparently true. 12. The aforesaid aspect in the opinion of this Court is an attempt made by the Petitioner and his learned counsel to mislead this Court. On this ground itself, the writ petition is required to be dismissed by imposing exemplary costs. 13. 12. The aforesaid aspect in the opinion of this Court is an attempt made by the Petitioner and his learned counsel to mislead this Court. On this ground itself, the writ petition is required to be dismissed by imposing exemplary costs. 13. Be that as it may, this Court would not like to dismiss the writ petition on the said ground. It is pertinent to take note of that the Departmental Proceedings was carried out solely on the basis of the allegations and uninfluenced by the criminal proceedings inasmuch as the criminal proceedings culminated into an acquittal on the basis of the judgment and order dated 27.05.2019 whereas the Petitioner herein was dismissed from service vide an order 25.04.2005 i.e. almost 14 years prior thereto. It is no longer res-integra that the manner of proof in respect to a Departmental Proceedings as well as a criminal proceedings are different inasmuch as, in a criminal proceedings, it is the prosecution who has to prove beyond reasonable doubt whereas in the case of departmental proceedings, it is preponderance of probabilities. In addition to that, it is an admitted fact that the Petitioner was in unauthorized leave. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned Departmental Proceedings as well as the orders passed thereby dismissing the Petitioner. 14. Another very relevant aspect of the matter which also requires consideration is the additional affidavit filed by the Petitioner wherein the Petitioner placed materials before this Court assigning reasons why the Petitioner could not participate in the Departmental Proceedings as well as could not challenge the order of dismissal which was passed in the year 2005. The documents enclosed to the additional affidavit even if taken on face value are certificates issued that the Petitioner was under treatment from 20.11.2000 to 20.03.2003. The impugned order of dismissal was passed in the year 2005. There is no material why the Petitioner thereupon could not assail the dismissal order and only after twenty years, approached this Court. The explanation so provided does not appear to be reasonable or bona fide. Under such circumstances, the question of entertaining the writ petition does not arise in the facts of the present case. 15. There is no material why the Petitioner thereupon could not assail the dismissal order and only after twenty years, approached this Court. The explanation so provided does not appear to be reasonable or bona fide. Under such circumstances, the question of entertaining the writ petition does not arise in the facts of the present case. 15. This Court also finds it relevant to take note of that the Petitioner contends that he was not paid the subsistence allowance upon his suspension till the date of his termination. The materials on record do not show that the Petitioner at any point of time approached the Respondents claiming subsistence allowance. This Court finds it relevant to take note of paragraph No.15 of the writ petition wherein the Petitioner averred that the communication dated 26.05.2024 is enclosed to the writ petition as Annexure-5. However, upon a perusal of the Annexure-5 shows that the typed copy is dated 26.05.2024 whereas the hand written document is dated 26.05.2004. The above also shows that the Petitioner not only did not approach the Respondents but also tried to mislead this Court. 16. Considering the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The instant writ petition stands dismissed. (ii) This Court deprecates and reprimands both the Petitioner as well as his learned counsel for their conduct in trying to mislead this Court. (iii) Taking into account that the learned counsel for the Petitioner is a young and budding lawyer, this Court would not like to pursue further with any stringest action. This Court hopes and expects that the learned counsel representing the Petitioner shall mend his ways in future.