Disciplinary proceedings and criminal trials are distinct legal processes with different standards of proof. An employee is not automatically entitled to the revision of disciplinary penalties or payment of salary for a suspension period following a criminal discharge when the disciplinary inquiry was conducted properly and remained unchallenged.

ORDER :

YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J.

WP(C) No. 203 (K)/2025 and WP(C) No. 204 (K)/2025 are disposed of by this common Order as both the petitions are similar in nature and pertains to the same issues.

2. The petitioner in WP(C)/203/2025 was appointed as NCE cook under the Police Department by an Order dated 30.04.2011, and he is serving the department till date. Based on a complaint, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner being Kohima South PS Case No. 0021/2018 U/S 420 IPC R/W 7/13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In view of the registration of the said criminal case, the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 31.07.2018. Disciplinary proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner and based on the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner was re-instated in service by the impugned order dated 13.03.2020 with a penalty of withholding of increments for 2 (two) years with cumulative effect with a condition that the period of suspension till re-instatement is treated as such (not entitled for pay and allowances) but, without break of service for pension benefits.

3. Subsequently, by an order dated 30.04.2024, the petitioner was discharged from the criminal case by an order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class.

4. The petitioner thereafter, submitted a representation dated 05.08.2024 praying for review of the penalty and the re-instatement order dated 13.03.2020 under the provisions of FR 52(B) and to pay full arrears and allowances for the suspension period. Having failed to get any positive response from the authorities, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No. 237/2024. Accordingly, this Court by order dated 01.08.2025 disposed of the WP(C)/237/2024 with a direction to the respondent No. 3/ Appellate Authority to treat the representation dated 05.08.2024 as an Appeal under Rule 17 (2) (d) of the Nagaland (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1967 and to dispose of the same within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

5. Consequent upon the direction of this Court in WP(C)/237/2024, the appellate authority issued the impugned order dated 26th August, 2025, whereby, the prayer of the petitioner to review the penalty and re- instatement order and to pay full salary and allowances for the suspension period was rejected and the finding of the Disciplinary Authority was upheld.

6. Similarly, the petitioner in WP(C)/204 (K)/2025 was appointed as a constable by an order dated 10.10.2001 and subsequently, by another order dated 12.10.2001 his appointment order was partially modified to the effect that his appointment is to be treated as a regular appointment. Since, then, the petitioner has been serving in the Police Department for more than 23 years.

7. A complaint was lodged against the petitioner by one Neeraj Paswan and a case was registered against the petitioner in Kohima South PS Case No. 00021/2018 U/S 420 IPC R/W 7/13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

8. Basing on the complaint and the registration of the criminal case, the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 02.10.2018. Thereafter, Disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. On completion of the proceeding, based on the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, by an order dated 13.03.2020, the p