Denovo inquiries in disciplinary proceedings must adhere to procedural fairness, correcting prior errors without violating natural justice principles.

JUDGEMENT :

MARLI VANKUNG, J.

1. Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. A. Atreya, learned counsel. Also heard Ms. A. Bhuyan, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 appearing on behalf of her senior Mr. N. Das. The state is the proforma respondent No. 1. and is represented by Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate for

2. The instant writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of the appropriate writ or direction to the respondents, for setting aside the impugned enquiry report dated 04.05.2024, issued by respondent No. 4 and the decision dated 03.10.2024 taken in the 317 meeting of the Board of Directors of respondent No. 2 which is to impose penalty of dismissal upon the petitioner and for quashing and setting aside the impugned office order dated 05.11.2024, imposing the penalty of dismissal issued by respondent No. 3 against the petitioner.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was serving as Financial Controller of the Assam Industrial Development Cooperation Limited (AIDC), which is a class-I post under the AIDC (Employees Service) Rules, 1992. Thereafter, there was an allegation which revolves around a particular fixed deposit made by the AIDC at Canara Bank amounting to Rs. 15,00,00,000/- which was to mature on 17.06.2020, which was transferred to the Central Bank of India for being kept as a fixed deposit, from where Rs. 14,97,91,144/- was credited to the account of one Mr. Raj Mohammed. The respondent/Central Bank of India denied the knowledge of the said fixed deposit and transfer which resulted in their lodging an FIR registered as 298/2020 at the Bhangagarh PS registered under Sections 203 /406/420/463/468 IPC against Mr. Raj Mohammad, Proprietor of M/s Rehana Enterprise and other unknown persons, following which the petitioner was also arrested for his alleged involvement in the transfer of the money to Central bank of India wherein, the petitioner was later released on bail. A disciplinary proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner, which resulted in the termination of the petitioner from his services vide order dated 23.03.2022. Being aggrieved with the enquiry report dated 30.10.2021 as well as the termination order dated 23.03.2022, the petitioner had filed a writ petition registered as WP(C) No. 5085/2022. The said WP(C) No. 5085/2022 was disposed of by this court vide order dated 24.11.2023, wherein both the enquiry report dated 30.10.2021 as well as the termination order dated 23.03.2022 is set aside and an enquiry was ordered to be proceeded with denovo.

4. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the instant writ petition emanate from the order dated 24.11.2023 passed by this court in WP(C) No. 5085/2022, by which the previous departmental proceedings on the same set of facts against the petitioner was set aside and denovo proceedings were directed.

5. The learned Sr. Counsel submitted that the respondents conducted the denovo proceedings in a manner which is contrary to law and thereafter issued the impugned enquiry report dated 04.05.2024 and the office order dated 05.11.2024, by which the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that as per Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, there is no provision