SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 138

THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SUMAN SHYAM, J.
Avatar Singh S/o- Late Pritam Singh - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And 3 Ors - Respondent
WP(C) 2211 / 2024
Decided On : 27-02-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. D.N. Bhattacharyya, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. D. Gogoi, SC, PHE Deptt. Assam. Ms. P. Sarma, SC, APSC.

IMPORTANT POINT
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.

Headnote:

(A) Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 - Rules 7 and 9 - Dismissal of service - The petitioner challenged the penalty order dated 14/12/2023, claiming it was issued without following prescribed procedures, specifically the lack of opportunity to defend and absence of a proper enquiry. (Paras 2 , 6 , 12 )

(B) Procedural Fairness - The court emphasized that a major penalty cannot be imposed without adhering to the procedural requirements of the Rules. (Paras 10 , 15 )

(C) Authority to Initiate Proceedings - The Deputy Commissioner was not the appointing authority and thus lacked the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. (Paras 13 , 14 )

Facts of the case:

The petitioner, an Executive Engineer, was dismissed based on an enquiry report alleging misappropriation of government funds, but claimed he was not given a chance to defend himself. (Paras 3 , 5 )

Findings of Court:

The dismissal order was found to be arbitrary and illegal, and the court set it aside while allowing the department to initiate fresh proceedings. (Paras 16 )

Issues: The main issues included whether the dismissal followed proper procedure and if the petitioner was given a fair opportunity to defend himself. (Paras 6 , 14 )

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that procedural lapses in the disciplinary proceedings rendered the dismissal invalid, emphasizing the necessity for a fair enquiry process. (Paras 12 , 15 )

Result: The impugned order of dismissal was set aside, and the petitioner was to be reinstated with the department granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings.

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 Commissioner (now District Commissioner), Nalbari into the allegation of misappropriation of Government fund by the petitioner. On conclusion of such enquiry, conducted through the Superintending Engineer, PHE, Nalbari Circle, a report was submitted on 04/04/2022. Copy of the Enquiry Report dated 04/04/2022 was also forwarded to the Government. Taking note of the report dated 04/04/2022, on 13/06/2022, the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, PHE Department, Assam, had initiated Departmental Proceeding against the writ petitioner by issuing show cause notice, framing the following charge:-

    “(1) That while you were serving as Executive Engineer (PHE), O/o. the EE (PHE), Nalbari Division, it is alleged that major misappropriation of Govt. money under SBM-G under Nalbari District took place due to which objective of Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin) has suffered which violates Rule 3 of Assam Civil Service (Conduct) Rules 1965. You are therefore charged with misappropriation of Govt. money.”

4. The show cause notice dated 13/06/2022 was accompanied by the following statement of allegations :-

    “That while you were serving as Executive Engineer (PHE), O/o the EE (PHE), Nalbari Division, Nalbari, it is alleged that a major misappropriation of Govt. money under SBM-G under Nalbari District took place by making payment of 6 nos. of false bills for an amount of Rs. 34.20 lakh in two occasions on dtd. 05.02.2021 for an amount of Rs. 6,00,000.00 and on dtd 21/03/2021 for an amount of Rs. 28,20,000.00 in favour of Hames Society due to which objective of Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin) has suffered which violates Rule 3 of Assam Civil Service (conduct) Rule 1965. You are therefore charged with misappropriation of Govt. money.”

5. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not afforded any opportunity to present his case or to produce evidence in his defence. On the contrary, on 27/04/2022, the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari, had furnished copy of the enquiry report dated 04/04/2022 to the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, PHE Department, Assam, holding that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct of embezzlement of public money. Based on such report, the impugned order dated 14/12/2023 was issued, thereby, dismissing the petitioner from service, without holding any Disciplinary Proceeding as per law.

6. It is the specifically pleaded case of the petitioner that before the impugned order dated 14/12/2023 imposing the major penalty of dismissal from service was issued, no enquiry, within the meaning of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1964, was conducted nor was the petitioner given any opportunity of being heard in the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that even the ch


                                          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                                          1
                                          2
                                          3
                                          4
                                          5
                                          6
                                          7
                                          8
                                          9
                                          10
                                          11
                                          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                                          supreme today icon
                                          logo-black

                                          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

                                          qr

                                          Scan Me!

                                          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                                          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                                          whatsapp-icon Back to top