29 Jul 2025
Order issued
ConcludedThe Gauhati High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: 2025:GAU-AS:10386
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2025-0014West Karbi Anglong, AssamJudgment 29 July 2025
Baithalangso Police Sub-Inspector (Probationer) vs The State of Assam and 4 Ors
The Gauhati High Court dismissed the writ petition of probationer Sub-Inspector and upheld his removal from service for extortion committed during naka duty at Umru on 31 May 2023. The Court found that personnel under his command took Rs 30,000 from the pocket of bike-rider a Baithalangso resident, with further extortion from two other riders proved through eleven witnesses in the departmental enquiry. It held that his subsequent discharge in PRC No. 234/2023 at the charge-framing stage had no consequence for the already concluded departmental proceedings and that the penalty was not disproportionate. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.
Externally reportedV2
What this record means
This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.
How verification works →Detailed record
Report card
By judgment dated 29 July 2025 in WP(C)/1630/2024, the Gauhati High Court (Coram: N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Sub-Inspector (Probationer), Baithalangso Police Station, West Karbi Anglong.
- Register number
- AS 09 CW 0005
- Case reference
- WP(C)/1630/2024 / 2025:GAU-AS:10386
- Court and date
- Gauhati High Court (Coram: N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.), 29 July 2025
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Sub-Inspector (Probationer), Baithalangso Police Station, West Karbi Anglong
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as removed from service.
- Provisions invoked
- Not stated in the cited sources
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “the penalty of removal from service imposed upon the petitioner, in the considered view of this Court, is not disproportionate to the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the said Show Cause Notice, dated 09-07-2023, and established in the enquiry.” (at para 51)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Disciplinary action upheld. Sentence: dismissal.
- Present status of the proceedings
- The judgment is recent and may be subject to appeal; the pendency of an appeal is not a finding.
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
Current position
Judgment dated 29 July 2025. This judgment may still be subject to appeal; initiation or pendency of an appeal is not a finding.
Evidence position
Recorded allegations
OtherPrimary
Material fact supported
Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.
Official finding: supports allegation.
Attributed to the court
What the court found
Holding not recorded separately.
“the penalty of removal from service imposed upon the petitioner, in the considered view of this Court, is not disproportionate to the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the said Show Cause Notice, dated 09-07-2023, and established in the enquiry.” (para 51)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
Continuing record
Follow-up history
19 Sep 2026
(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))
Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.
Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.