Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, including communication of inquiry reports and provision for cross-examination, to ensure fairness and validity.

JUDGMENT :

KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.

Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. K. Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for the State respondents.

2] By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 24.05.2000, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Nagaon, whereby the petitioner was awarded the punishment of stoppage of 2 (two) increments with cumulative effect, and the order dated 20.09.2020, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (CR) Diphu, Assam, whereby the appeal preferred against the order dated 24.05.2000 was rejected, thereby upholding the order passed by the disciplinary authority.

3] The brief facts of the case are that while the petitioner was posted at Dhing P.S. as Officer-in-Charge, by letter dated 27.11.1999, the Superintendent of Police, Nagaon, issued a show-cause notice along with the statement of allegation under Section 7 of the POLICE ACT (Act-V), 1861, read with Rule 66 of the Assam Police Manual, Part-III, and Article 311 of the Constitution of India, for inter-alia allegedly not handing over 16 case diaries to his successor at the time of handing over the charge of Dhing P.S. Accordingly, the petitioner was charged with misconduct and gross negligence of duty. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his written statement on 10.12.1999, wherein he denied the allegation and requested to exonerate him from the charges leveled. Thereafter, a disciplinary proceeding was held by the enquiry officer, and after completion of the same, the enquiry officer submitted its report. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority, i.e., the Superintendent of Police, Nagaon, Assam, after perusing the findings submitted by the enquiry officer, found him guilty of the irregularities charged and accordingly, by order dated 24.05.2000, awarded the penalty of stoppage of 2 (two) annual increments with cumulative effect. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the enquiry was held in his back, and he had no knowledge of the disciplinary proceedings, and that prior to his retirement on 31.01.2020 as Inspector of Police, Border Branch, Assam, upon receiving the letter dated 13.01.2020, issued by the respondent No.5 whereby the annual service increment of the petitioner was regularized with an endorsement in Clause 2 that pay raised from Rs. 5080/- to Rs.5200/- w.e.f., 01.07.2002 instead of Rs.5375/- as he was awarded the subject penalty in connection with Departmental Proceeding No.12/1999 vide D.O. No.1725 dated 24.05.2000, he for the first time learned that he was awarded the aforesaid punishment. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the DIG (CR), Diphu, being the appellate authority against the aforesaid order; however, the same was rejected by order dated 20.09.2020. Situated thus, the present writ petition has been filed.

4] Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order dated 24.05.2000 was never communicated to the petitioner until he received the order dated 13.01.2020 from the Superintendent of Police (Border), wherefrom it had been revealed that penalty was awarded to him way back in the year 2000. He further submits that the procedure stipulated in Clause (e) and (f) of Rule 66 of the Assam Police Manual Part-III has completely been violated by the disciplinary authority, and the appellant authority has hardly discussed anything as regards the same in the impugned order. He further submits that no opportunity was given to cross-examine the listed witnesses. By relying on the WT Message dated 03.03.2000, 06.03.2000, and 24.03.2000, he further submits that none of the eyewitnesses were examined in the presence of the petitioner. He further submits that since the petitioner was not given the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, there has been a complete violation of the principles of natural justice an