SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 233

THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J
Moon Basumatary S/o- Michael Basumatary - Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam - Respondent
WP(C) 903 of 2023
Decided On : 20-02-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: MS D BORGOHAIN, MS. K BARUAH,MS. M SARMAH,MR. P GOHAIN
For the Respondent: GA, ASSAM

IMPORTANT POINT
The acquittal in a criminal trial does not invalidate disciplinary proceedings, as the standards of proof differ between the two contexts.

Headnote:

(A) Assam Police Act, 2007 - Section 65 - Constitution of India - Article 311 - Disciplinary proceedings - The petitioner challenged the penalty of removal from service imposed by the disciplinary authority following a shooting incident involving a colleague. The disciplinary authority upheld the penalty despite the petitioner's acquittal in a criminal trial, citing differing standards of proof. (Paras 2 , 10 , 18 , 25 )

(B) Standard of proof - The court reiterated that the standard of proof in departmental proceedings is 'preponderance of probabilities', while in criminal cases it is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. This distinction allows for different outcomes in parallel proceedings. (Paras 17 , 20 )

(C) Variance in evidence - The court noted discrepancies in witness testimonies between the departmental inquiry and the criminal trial, concluding that the findings in the departmental inquiry were valid despite the acquittal in the criminal case. (Paras 24 , 25 )

Facts of the case:

The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector of Police, was involved in a shooting incident on 31.12.2019, resulting in grievous injury to a colleague. Following departmental proceedings, he was removed from service. The petitioner was acquitted in a subsequent criminal trial.

Findings of Court:

The court upheld the disciplinary authority's decision, stating that the acquittal in the criminal case did not invalidate the disciplinary proceedings.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disciplinary authority's findings were valid despite the criminal acquittal and the differing standards of proof in the two proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the acquittal in a criminal trial does not automatically invalidate a disciplinary proceeding, as the standards of proof differ. The evidence in the departmental inquiry was sufficient to uphold the penalty.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Ms. D. Buragohain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. C. Chutia, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner, by way of instituting the present proceeding has presented a challenge to an order dated 16.08.2022, issued by the disciplinary authority of the petitioner, imposing upon the petitioner the penalty of removal from service. The petitioner has also assailed the enquiry report dated 06.11.2021, so submitted in the matter by the enquiry officer as well as the order dated 11.01.2023, passed by the appellate authority, upholding the penalty imposed upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority.

3. The petitioner, while working as a Sub-Inspector of Police (UB) (P) under the control of the Superintendent of Police, Nagaon, was vide order dated 09.11.2018, temporarily deputed to Majuli DEF. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police, Nagaon, vide order dated 15.09.2018, proceeded to release the petitioner from Nagaon for joining at Majuli DEF. On 31.12.2019, the petitioner herein, was involved in a shooting incident which had caused grievous injury to one Joydev Nath, a colleague of the petitioner. Basing on the said incident, an FIR came to be so lodged by one Indeswari Pegu, Sub-Inspector of Police before the Officer In-charge Jengraimukh Police Station, Majuli.

In the said FIR, it was alleged that the petitioner herein, after breaking open the door of the Toilet (attached to the room) in the Government quarter of Jengraimukh Police Station had taken out his government allotted Pistol (9 mm browning pistol) from the top of the drawer of the table, coked it, aimed and fired at Joydev Nath Sub- Inspector of Police. On being shot, Joydev Nath had fallen down on the floor of the room and he was bleeding profusely. Basing on the said incident, the petitioner came to be placed under suspension by the Superintendent of Police, Majuli, vide an order dated 01.01.2020.

Although a departmental proceeding was instituted against the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, Majuli, vide issuance of show- cause notice dated 04.02.2020 and the petitioner had submitted his reply, however, on the petitioner being repatriated to the Nagaon DEF, the Superintendent of Police, Nagaon, vide show-cause notice dated 26.05.2020; initiated a departmental proceeding against the petitioner. In the said show-cause notice, also, it was alleged that the petitioner while posted at Jengraimukh Police Station, Majuli, had on 31.12.2019 at around 9.40 PM, in pursuance to a verbal argument that had taken place between him and his colleague Joydev Nath of the same Police Station inside their government quarter, the petitioner after taking out his government allotted 9 mm browning pistol from the drawer, fired at Joydev Nath from a very close range, resulting in the victim falling on the ground bleeding profusely. The victim was held to have suffered grievous bullet injury and was immediately shifted to the hospital. The petitioner was further charged that he being a member of a disciplined force, had attempted to kill one of his fellow officers with a government allotted pistol and the above act of the petitioner was held to be tantamounting to a criminal misconduct. The petitioner had submitted his written statement of defense in the matter and the same not being found to be satisfactory, an enquiry was directed into the matter by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner was thereafter, vide order dated 11.07.2023, reinstated in his service, pending conclusion of the departmental proceeding so instituted against him.

On conclusion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report in the matter and the same was forwarded to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority vide a communication dated 06.11.2011. The petitioner was thereafter, transferred to Karimganj DEF and accordingly, the Superintendent of Police, Kari


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top