The disciplinary authority cannot order a fresh enquiry without identifying material irregularities in the previous proceedings, emphasizing adherence to the procedural rules and safeguarding the rights of the charged officer.

JUDGMENT :

Kardak Ete, J.

Heard Mr. I. Rafique, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C. K. S. Baruah, learned Government Advocate for the State respondent.

2. Challenges made in these writ petitions are to the order dated 06.09.2024, passed by the Director General of Police, Assam whereby, a fresh/de novo enquiry has been directed to be conducted while rejecting the findings of the enquiry officer dated 22.08.2025 against the petitioner, and the suspension order dated 13.12.2023, whereby, the petitioner was placed under suspension for following his arrest in connection with ACB P.S. Case No. 103/2023, under Section 7 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. The petitioner is an Inspector (UB) of Police under Assam Police. While working as Officer-In-Charge of Dhula Police Station, Darrang District, Assam, the petitioner has been subjected to departmental proceedings in connection with ACB P.S. Case No. 103/2023, under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner, along with one Muktar Hussain, was arrested on 13.11.2023 on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged on 29.11.2023 by one Shri Rafik Ali before the Officer-In-Charge ACB Police Station, Assam cum Superintendent of Police, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, alleging demanding of Rs. 3,20,000/- as bribe from the complainant. The petitioner was arrested by Trap Team of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Assam.

4. In WP(C) No. 4819/2024, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.09.2024, passed by the Director General of Police, Assam, whereby a fresh/de novo enquiry was directed to be conducted after rejecting the findings of the enquiry officer where the charges of serious misconduct and dereliction of duty against the petitioner were not proved on the ground that the petitioner was apprehended by Trap Team of Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, for demanding bribe and accepting it through middleman one Shri Muktar Hussain. While in WP(C) No. 1590/2024, the petitioner challenges the suspension order dated 13.12.2023 and it’s prolong continuation.

5. Mr. I. Rafique, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order dated 06.09.2024 directing a de-novo/fresh enquiry has been passed solely on the ground that the petitioner was arrested by a trap team and not on the ground of any material irregularity in the enquiry. Such an approach is contrary to the scheme of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 (the Services Rules, 1964 in short). As per the said Rules, upon receipt of the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority is required to consider the records of the enquiry and thereafter record its findings on each charge. The Rules do not vest any power to the Disciplinary Authority to discard the report altogether and direct a fresh or de-novo enquiry. He submits that Chapter VI, Para 6.18.1 of the Manual of Departmental Proceedings provides that where the Disciplinary Authority, upon a contention raised by the person or otherwise, finds that any material irregularity has been committed which has caused or is likely to cause prejudice to the charged person or is likely to vitiate the proceedings, the Authority shall consider (i) whether the whole enquiry should be set aside and a fresh enquiry started de novo; or (ii) whether the enquiry should be set aside from the stage of occurrence of the irregularity and it is ordered to be started afresh from that particular stage. He submits that as per Para 6.18.2, as far as possible, where the ends of justice can be served and the charged officer i