Back
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SUMAN SHYAM
Avatar Singh S/o Late Pritam Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUMAN SHYAM, J
1. Heard Mr. D.N. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. I have also heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Public Health Engineering (PHE) Department, Assam, appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Ms. P. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, APSC, appearing for the respondent no. 4.
2. In the present writ petition, the order of penalty dated 14/12/2023, dismissing the petitioner from service with disqualification in future employment, purportedly issued under Rule 9(10) and 7 (vii) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (herein after referred to as the Rules of 1964 ) has been put under challenge on several grounds. However, the primary ground urged by the petitioner’s counsel is that the order of penalty has been issued without following the prescribed procedure laid down in Rule 9 of the Rules of 1964 or after giving proper opportunity to the petitioner to defend his interest.
3. It appears that the writ petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer, PHE Department, Nalbari Division in the year 2022 when, an enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Com
A major penalty cannot be imposed without following procedural requirements, including providing an opportunity for defense, as per the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
An employee cannot successfully challenge disciplinary action due to non-supply of inquiry report unless they demonstrate actual prejudice, particularly when alternative remedies are available.
De novo inquiries lacking essential witness examinations violate natural justice principles, rendering dismissal decisions unlawful.
Point of Law : There can hardly be any doubt that no person can be allowed to misappropriate money belonging to any institution be it public or private. To punish such a person, the law would require....
The disciplinary authority must provide reasons for disagreeing with an Inquiry Officer's findings to uphold natural justice.
The disciplinary authority cannot order a fresh enquiry without identifying material irregularities in the previous proceedings, emphasizing adherence to the procedural rules and safeguarding the rig....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
