SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Gau) 24

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
Md. Khalilur Rahman S/O Lt. Showkat Ali – Appellant
Versus
The state of assam and 5 ors, rep. By the principal secy. To The Govt. Of Assam, Panchayat And Rural Development – Respondent
WP(C) 4415 Of 2014
Decided On : 06-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr.F K R Ahmed, Mr.A F N U Mollah,Mr.K Islam
For the Respondents: Mr. K. Konwar, Addl. Ag,Assam, Mr. K. Konwar, Sc, P And R.D.,Ga, Assam

The court upheld the dismissal of a public servant for misappropriation of funds, citing the lack of violation of natural justice and the adequacy of the disciplinary proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Principles of Natural Justice - The petitioner challenged the penalty of removal from service for allegations of financial irregularities and misappropriation of Government funds while serving as Secretary of Gaon Panchayat - The court found that charges were established based on the petitioner's admissions during the departmental enquiry, affirming that due process was followed. (Paras 2, 11, 12)

(B) Penalty for Misappropriation - The imposition of removal from service for misappropriation of funds was deemed not disproportionate to the established misconduct during the enquiry. (Paras 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner faced removal from service due to allegations of misappropriating Government funds intended for rural development while serving in different Gaon Panchayats. The petitioner argued that principles of natural justice were violated as he was not afforded a proper opportunity to defend against the charges.

Findings of Court:
The court confirmed that the petitioner had admitted to significant financial irregularities and thus ruled that the penalty of removal was justified.

Issues: The key issues pertained to whether there was a violation of natural justice in the departmental enquiry and if the penalty imposed was appropriate given the admitted misappropriation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disciplinary process did not violate principles of natural justice since the petitioner had admitted to the charges, and affirmed that the imposed penalty was reasonable under the circumstances.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. allegations against the petitioner detailed. (Para 2 , 6 , 8)
2. argument regarding lack of due process. (Para 3 , 4)
3. evidence shows misappropriation of funds. (Para 10 , 12)
4. court's ruling on admission of guilt. (Para 11 , 13)
5. writ petition dismissed with no costs. (Para 14)

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

1. Heard Mr. A F N U Mollah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K Konwar, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, appearing for the State respondent.

2. The petitioner in the present proceedings has presented a challenge to an order dated 18.10.2012 issued towards imposing upon him the penalty of removal from service upon completion of a departmental proceeding instituted against him.

The petitioner, herein, was appointed as a Gaon Panchayat Secretary and while working in such capacity in Hatipukhuri Gaon Panchayat, his services as a Gaon Panchayat Secretary came to be regularized by the respondent authorities vide issuance of a Memorandum dated 10.06.2003. The petitioner was, thereafter, redeployed to Singimari Gaon Panchayat as its Secretary. While working as Secretary, Singimari Gaon Panchayat, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide an order dated 11.12.2007. The said suspension of the petitioner was so ordered in pursuance to an enquiry report submitted by the Block Development Officer, Rupahi Development Block, wherein, it was alleged that the petitioner, herein, had misappropriated huge amount of Government money, meant for Rural Development Program during his incumbency as the Secretary of Fakali Gaon Panchayat. Thereafter, the Director, Panchayat & Rural Development, Assam had instituted a departmental proceeding against the petitioner vide a show cause notice dated 29.09.2008. Three charges came to be leveled against the petitioner in the said show cause notice. The first charge was with regard to the misappropriation of Government money under IAY Schemes for the years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 and under the SGRY Scheme for the year 2005-2006, while he was serving as the Secretary of Fakali Gaon Panchayat. The second charge leveled against the petitioner was with regard to the non-handing over of the accounts of Fakali Gaon Panchayat after he was transferred therefrom and appointed as Secretary of Singimari Gaon Panchayat. The third charge as leveled against the petitioner vide the show cause notice dated 29.09.2008 was with regard to the misappropriation of Government money earmarked and released for construction of IAY houses for the year 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, while he was serving as the Secretary of the Singimari Gaon Panchayat.

The petitioner submitted his written statement denying the allegations so leveled against him vide show cause notice dated 29.09.2008. The show cause reply submitted by the petitioner not being found to be satisfactory, the disciplinary authority of the petitioner directed for holding of a departmental enquiry in the matter with regard to the charges framed against the petitioner vide show cause notice dated 29.08.2008. On conclusion of the said departmental proceeding, the disciplinary authority of the petitioner vide order dated 18.10.2012 proceeded to impose upon the petitioner the penalty of removal from service along with a direction for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,25,000/- along with 24% compound interest from the petitioner, herein.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner, herein, has instituted the present writ petition.

3. Mr. Mollah, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order dated 12.11.2012 had come to the knowledge of the petitioner only in the month of August, 2014. Mr. Mollah, submits that the respondent authorities had not conducted any enquiry in the matter and had proceeded to issue the impugned order dated 18.10.2012, imposing upon the petitioner the penalty of dismissal from service. He submits that the order dated 18.10.2012 not being preceded by a departmental proceeding affording to the petitioner a due op

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top