10 Nov 2020
Order issued
ConcludedThe Gauhati High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: WP(C) No. 99 of 2020
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2020-0010MizoramJudgment 10 November 2020
Mizoram Police Constable v. State of Mizoram & Ors.
The judgment of the Gauhati High Court records the following account. Constable of the 3rd IR Battalion, posted at Mangaldai, was found intoxicated on CI Ops duty on 25 March 2014 and, on 26 March 2014, entered the battalion church in full uniform with his service rifle while drunk during a service, causing panic. Charge-sheeted under Section 92 of the Mizoram Police Act, 2011, he admitted the charges, and the Appellate Authority altered the penalty to removal from service, implemented on 8 September 2020. The Gauhati High Court held the disciplinary and appellate authorities were the sole judges of facts, found no illegality and a penalty that did not shock the conscience, and dismissed the writ petition. 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 10 November 2020 in WP(C) No. 99 of 2020, the Gauhati High Court (Coram: Michael Zothankhuma, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, 3rd India Reserve Battalion, Mizoram Police.
- Register number
- MZ 00 CW 0001
- Case reference
- WP(C) No. 99 of 2020
- Court and date
- Gauhati High Court (Coram: Michael Zothankhuma, J.), 10 November 2020
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, 3rd India Reserve Battalion, Mizoram Police
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as removed from service.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 92 of the Mizoram Police Act, 2011
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “The petitioner being from a disciplined force, he should have known better than to enter a place of worship with a rifle, while being under the influence of alcohol, as the said act endangers the lives of the people inside …” (at para 22)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Disciplinary action upheld. Sentence: dismissal.
- Present status of the proceedings
- No further proceedings are recorded in the cited sources; the judgment is the concluded position shown.
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
Current position
The Gauhati High Court judgment dated 10 November 2020 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.
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 petitioner being from a disciplined force, he should have known better than to enter a place of worship with a rifle, while being under the influence of alcohol, as the said act endangers the lives of the people inside …” (para 22)
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.