# Mizoram Police Upper Division Clerk / Sub-Inspector of Police (Ministerial) vs State Of Mizoram And 3 Ors

HTML version: [https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0091](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0091)

## Report card

By judgment dated 12 June 2026 in WP(C)/169/2019, the Gauhati High Court (Aizawl Bench) (Coram: Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Upper Division Clerk / Sub-Inspector of Police (Ministerial), Mizoram Police.

- Register number: MZ 01 CW 0002
- Case reference: WP(C)/169/2019 / 2026:GAU-MZ:303
- Court and date: Gauhati High Court (Aizawl Bench) (Coram: Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, J.), 12 June 2026
- Officer(s) at the material time: Upper Division Clerk / Sub-Inspector of Police (Ministerial), Mizoram Police
- Present service status: Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked: the Rule 1037 Mizoram Police Manual; the Rule 10(7) CCS (CCA) Rules; FR 54(5)
- Finding of the Court (extract): “I do not find any merit in the writ petition, which accordingly stands dismissed.” (at para as reported on IndianKanoon doc/174883276)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum: Disciplinary action upheld. Sentence: imprisonment.
- Present status of the proceedings: The judgment is recent and may be subject to appeal; the pendency of an appeal is not a finding.
- Source orders: [Judgment / order (primary source)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/174883276/); [Permanent link to this record](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0091)

**Record:** CW-2026-0091 (compiler id CWC-1376); case cop-mz-hc-1
**Title:** Mizoram Police Upper Division Clerk / Sub-Inspector of Police (Ministerial) vs State Of Mizoram And 3 Ors
**Court:** Gauhati High Court (Aizawl Bench); judges: Sanjeev Kumar Sharma
**Case number / citation:** WP(C)/169/2019 / 2026:GAU-MZ:303
**Judgment:** 2026-06-12 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Aizawl, Mizoram; police station or unit: Mizoram Police (ministerial establishment); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Rule 1037 Mizoram Police Manual; Rule 10(7) CCS (CCA) Rules; FR 54(5)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Upper Division Clerk / Sub-Inspector of Police (Ministerial), Mizoram Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The petitioner was ministerial staff of the Mizoram Police who faced charges of diversion of public funds and underwent successive dismissal and reinstatement rounds. The High Court held that the earlier dismissal orders had been set aside only on procedural grounds and the petitioner had already been restored with liberty for fresh proceedings. The High Court held that the 2016 compulsory-retirement penalty with compassionate pension stood and the intervening suspension periods were rightly treated as non-countable. The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking counting of about 11 years and 14 days of suspension with back benefits.

> I do not find any merit in the writ petition, which accordingly stands dismissed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/174883276/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** as reported on IndianKanoon doc/174883276
**display title redacted:** Mizoram Police Upper Division Clerk / Sub-Inspector of Police (Ministerial) vs State Of Mizoram And 3 Ors
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-06-12', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court (Aizawl Bench)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court (Aizawl Bench) recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'disciplinary upheld', 'source': '2026:GAU-MZ:303', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/174883276/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Case title is incorrect: the Indian Kanoon record shows '\[name withheld\] vs State Of Mizoram And 3 Ors', not '\[name withheld\] vs State Of Mizoram And 3 Ors'. The court did not anonymize the case name. If the researcher intended to anonymize the officer's name, this should be noted separately, but the actual case title should be faithfully reproduced.; The officer's name (\[name withheld\]) appears in the case title on the judgment but was replaced with '\[name withheld\]' in the entry. This is inconsistent with the actual record. Anonymization of a convicted/penalized officer is not standard practice for this register unless he is a victim of police misconduct, which he is not.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2026-0091](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0091)