Gauhati High Court
Abc/476 Om Prakash Raut vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors Rep. By The ... on 18 August, 2025
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010088932024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/94/2025
ABC/476 OM PRAKASH RAUT
S/O LT. DUDH NATH ROUT R/O TINIALI BAGAN NEAR FOOTBALL FIELD
P.S. TINGKHONG DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM.
VERSUS
1: THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and
SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, IN THE HOME DEPARTMENT,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI-7.
3:DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ASSAM GUWAHATI.
4:SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DIBRUGARH ASSAM
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. T. Som, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mrs. R.B. Bora, Junior Govt. Advocate, Assam for all respondents.
-B E F O R E -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
18.08.2025
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)
Heard Ms. T. Som, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mrs. R.B.
Bora, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for all the respondents.
The appellant has questioned the judgment & order dated 25.01.2024
passed by a learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.3435/2013, whereby the prayer
Page No.# 2/3
made on behalf of the appellant for setting aside the punishment of removal
from service, was rejected. The prayer made on behalf of the appellant before
the learned Single Judge for altering the sentence imposed as being
disproportionate to the misdemeanor of the appellant also was refused.
The records reveal that the appellant was posted as PSO to one Kukil
Gogoi, a surrendered militant. On 13.09.2011, on the asking of one person
associated with Kukil Gogoi, he left behind his firearm and went out to procure
food for Kukil Gogoi and his associates. During this period, it appears that Kukil
Gogoi used the firearm of the appellant in killing one of the members of his
team, namely, Sonal Banerjee, for which a criminal case also was lodged.
The appellant was acquitted in the afore-noted case but in the
Departmental Proceeding, it was found that he had derelicted his duty and for
no apparent good reason, he had walked out of the place from where he should
have been, on the pretext of bringing food for Kukil Gogoi and his associates.
The contention of the appellant that such action was under compulsion
and threat to his life by Kukil Gogoi was not accepted by the learned Single
Judge and rightly so for the reason that the appellant never informed about the
incident to his Senior Officer. It was only after he was arrested and put under
suspension that the matter came to light.
The further contention of the appellant that every aspect of the matter
was narrated to the superior Police Officer was not found to be in consonance
with the records available in the case.
The learned Single Judge, after having found that the appellant was
never prejudiced on any account as far as the Departmental Proceeding was
concerned, refused to interfere with the decision of the Disciplinary Authority.
With respect to the quantum of punishment imposed upon the
Page No.# 3/3
appellant, namely, removal from service, we are of the view that unless the
sentence imposed upon the appellant is shocking to the judicial conscience or is
so harsh that it does not take into account the circumstances as also the
delinquent himself in his capacity as PSO, no interference is required to be
made.
The learned Single Judge, after having discussed all aspects of the
matter, refused to interfere with the decision of the Disciplinary Authority.
We find no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the
learned Single Judge. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal in limine.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
