Disciplinary Authorities must allow representation to the delinquent officer before making adverse decisions, particularly when criminal charges are identical and resulted in discharge.

JUDGMENT :

SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.

Heard Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam assisted by Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate for the State respondents.

2. Insofar as the WP(C) No. 6815/2023, the case projected by the petitioner before this Court is that the he is a retired ACS Officer of the State of Assam. He was superannuated from service as the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Secretariat as Administrative Department. During his tenure as an ACS Officer, while he was posted as the Deputy Commissioner for the District of Chirang certain allegations were made against him that he had accepted illegal gratification in his office chamber. He was therefore, placed under suspension vide suspension Order dated the 14.09.2017. In this context an FIR was also filed against the petitioner on the 22.09.2017, which was registered as ACB PS Case No.25/2017 alleging that the petitioner took bribe. The petitioner was put under suspension on the basis of a report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption, Assam vide letter No. DGVA/RI/2017/3376 dated 08.09.2017 regarding the allegations against petitioner accepting bribe in his office chamber. He was therefore, put under suspension pending drawal of disciplinary proceedings under the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. The petitioner was thereafter served with a show-cause notice under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his reply. Being dissatisfied with the show- cause reply an Enquiry Officer was appointed and the enquiry proceeded against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 23.05.2018, whereby the charges levelled against the writ petitioner were held not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thereafter, by notification dated 29.06.2018 the suspension order of the petitioner was revoked and he was reinstated in service. The enquiry report however, was not accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and by impugned letter dated 30.11.2019, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings in the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner thereafter, submitted a reply dated 13.08.2020 requesting the authority to give its kind consideration and take necessary steps in the matter. Meanwhile in respect of the investigations carried on by the Vigilance Cell charge sheet was filed, the cognizance was taken by the Special Judge, Assam as Special Case No.12/2019. By order dated 16.10.2021 the Special Judge discharged the writ petitioner as the Special Court found that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner and the case was accordingly disposed of. A copy of that order was also placed before the Disciplinary Authority, although however, the said Disciplinary Authority did not take into consideration the discharge order of the Special Court and did not recall the disagreement note provided to the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is before the Court with the following prayers:

“1. A writ in the nature of certiorari shall not be issued to set aside the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Petitioner vide showcause notice dated 30.10.2017. (Annexure-C)

2. A Writ in the nature of Certiorari shall not issued to set aside and quash the impugned note of disagreement dated 29.11.2019 of the Disciplinary Authority. (Annexure-J).

3. A Writ in the nature of Mandamus shall not be issued directing the respondents to fo