Gauhati High Court
Moon Basumatary vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 25 July, 2025
Author: Michael Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010065742025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/194/2025
MOON BASUMATARY
S/O MICHAEL BASUMATARY, R/O VILL. JOYNAGAR, WARD NO. 4, P.O.
GOSSAIGAON, DIST. KOKRAJHAR, PIN 783363, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF
ASSAM, HOME (A) DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006
2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
ASSAM
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI 781007
ASSAM.
3:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (SR)
ASSAM
SILCHAR
ASSAM 788001
4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
KARIMGANJ
ASSAM 788710
5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
NAGAON
ASSAM 78200
Page No.# 2/6
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K GUPTA, MS M BORAH,MR. P GOHAIN
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
25.07.2025
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)
Heard Mr. A. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr. D. K. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate,
Assam for the respondents.
2. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.02.2025
passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.903/2023, wherein
the order of the Disciplinary Authority, removing the appellant from
service and the appellate order, sustaining the punishment
imposed upon the appellant, have been ratified and sustained.
3. It appears that the appellant had opened fire from his service
weapon at one Joydev Nath from a close range as a result of
which he suffered grievous injuries but was saved because of the
timely medical intervention. An F.I.R. was lodged in which the
appellant was arrested but was later released on bail and was also
reinstated in serving pending the departmental proceeding against
Page No.# 3/6
him which was initiated on the charge of his having shown a
conduct which was not befitting of police officer and trying to kill a
colleague inside Government quarters by the official weapon.
4. In the course of the departmental proceedings, the witnesses
were examined including the victim/Joydev Nath, who supported
the accusation. The Disciplinary Authority, on finding that the
appellant, a member of the disciplined force had committed such
an act, which could have killed his colleague, found him guilty. It
was considered to be a criminal misconduct. He was saddled with
the punishment of removal from service by the Disciplinary
Authority.
5. The appeal preferred by the appellant before the Deputy
Inspector General of Police (SR), Assam, Silchar was also dismissed.
6. However, in the meantime, the appellant was acquitted on
benefit of doubt from the Trial Court.
7. The contention of the appellant before the Writ Court was
that with the acquittal of the criminal case against the appellant,
he ought not to have been removed from service. In support of this
contention a decision of the Supreme Court was cited viz., Ramlal
Vs State of Rajasthan & others reported in (2024) 1 SCC 175, wherein
the Supreme Court had interfered with the penalty in the
Page No.# 4/6
departmental proceeding of the party on the ground of the
charges in both the proceedings viz., disciplinary proceedings and
criminal proceedings to be absolutely identical.
8. The learned Single Judge thereafter proceeded to examine
the case in detail and found that the Trial court which had
acquitted the appellant had observed that the victim had made a
departure from the accusation and did not state emphatically that
the action of the appellant herein was voluntary and intentional.
He also stated before the Trial court that mercy be shown to the
appellant herein as he was a friend of the appellant. Thus, there
being no evidence on record before the Trial court to confirm
whether the firing was accidental or intentional, benefit of doubt
was given to him and he was acquitted of the offence under
Sections 326/307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 of
the PDPP Act, 1984.
9. The learned Single Judge, however, concluded that the
standard of proof required in a criminal proceeding is absolutely
different from the standard of proof required in the departmental
enquiry. The same charge in evidence may lead to different results
in the two proceedings but that would not be a ground for
interfering with the decision of the Disciplinary Authority in a
Page No.# 5/6
departmental proceeding. In a departmental proceeding, the
charge is to be established by way of preponderance of evidence
whereas in a criminal case it is required to be established beyond
all reasonable doubts.
10. It is cadit quaestio now that a Writ Court shall not act as an
appellate court and re-assess the evidence led in the domestic
enquiry or would interfere on the ground that yet another view is
possible on the basis of materials placed on record. What a Writ
Court is to see is whether the enquiry against the delinquent was
conducted fairly and properly and that the findings were based on
evidence. The issue of adequacy and reliability of the evidence is
not required to be gone into. The Disciplinary Authority in the case
of the appellant found that the a member of police force ought
not to be so trigger-happy so as to train his weapon at his friend
over a minor verbal scuffle. There was no denial of the victim in the
disciplinary proceeding that the appellant had not opened fire.
Members of police force are required to display a disciplined
conduct or else it would be unsafe to leave the administration of
justice on them. Members of the police force are the first
responders in case of any trouble.
11. Taking these facts into account the learned Single Judge
Page No.# 6/6
agreed to and ratified the decision of the Disciplinary Authority in
imposing the penalty of removal of the appellant from service.
12. We find no good reason to interfere with the judgment of the
learned Single Judge.
13. We, thus, dismiss the appeal.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
