Disciplinary authorities must adhere to procedural fairness, including providing reasons for disagreement with enquiry findings, as per Rule 9(A) of the Assam Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1964.

JUDGMENT :

SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.

Heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. U. Sarma, learned Government Advocate, Assam appears for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has been serving in the Assam Police Radio Organization (APRO) as a Constable (Operator) since 18.03.1987, following his selection through the recruitment process conducted by the organization. While posted at Silchar, a complaint was lodged against the petitioner regarding a loan he had taken from an individual. As a result, an enquiry was conducted by the Additional Superintendent of Police (Communication) in Silchar. The enquiry report was submitted on 09.04.2009, and based on this report, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide D.O. No. 502 dated 30.06.2009. According to the charges outlined in the show cause notice, it was alleged that while the petitioner was serving at the Silchar Zone, he had collected a total of Rs. 32,20,520/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Twenty Thousand Five Hundred Twenty) from 23 (Twenty Three) different police personnel. However, he had failed to return Rs. 23,57,660/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Fifty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Sixty).

3. Pursuant to the show cause notice issued, the petitioner submitted his reply and participated in the enquiry. The enquiry report was submitted on 19.11.2010, wherein the enquiry officer concluded that the petitioner was not liable for any of the charges against him. However, the disciplinary authority later issued another notice dated 23.07.2012, informing the petitioner that the disciplinary authority had agreed with the findings of the departmental proceedings and had decided to impose a penalty. The penalty sought to be imposed was "withholding of increments for 2 (two) years with cumulative effect." In response to this notice, the petitioner submitted his reply. Finally, by order dated 19.09.2012, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of withholding the petitioner’s increments for 2 (two) years with cumulative effect.

4. It is submitted that the petitioner was implicated in an FIR lodged against him, alleging his involvement in monetary transactions with certain individuals from Barak Valley during his posting in Silchar. The FIR led to the registration of CID Police Station Case No. 253 of 2015 under Sections 406/409/420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). After conducting the investigation, the Investigating Authority submitted Final Report No. 34 on 14.11.2017, which was accepted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Kamrup (M), Guwahati, on 29.01.2018. Following the filing of the final report, the petitioner submitted a representation to Respondent No. 2, requesting his promotion and restoration of his seniority. In response, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector with retrospective effect from 01.06.2009 and his seniority was restored above that of his immediate junior. Subsequently, the petitioner filed another representation dated 09.12.2020 before Respondent No. 2, seeking the revocation of the penalty imposed on him, specifically the stoppage of increments with cumulative effect for two years, as per the order dated 19.09.2012. The petitioner highlighted that the enquiry officer had concluded that he was not liable for the charges against him and therefore, the penalty imposed should be revoked.

5. Pursuant to this representation, the respondents through communication dated 30.01.2021, declined to entertain the petitioner’s request. They reasoned that the filing of the final report, its acceptance by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Kamrup (M), and the subsequent departmental order restoring the petitioner’s seniority, were neither relevant nor tenable in relation to the conclusions of the departmental enquiry. Furthermore, it was stated that since no appeal against the order of punishment had been filed, as per the procedure of law, the authority was not inclined to interfere with t