The court holds that procedural adherence in disciplinary proceedings is essential, and mere allegations of procedural violations without prejudice do not warrant judicial intervention.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Mazumdar, J.

Heard Mr. P.K. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also heard Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate Assam, appearing for the all respondents.

2. At the outset, Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, had prayed for time to file an affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition and stated that the records of the disciplinary proceedings are available.

3. The matter was kept as part heard on 09.02.2026 and upon production of the records by Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, this Court had taken up the matter for consideration to examine whether the records revealed any infirmity in the process during the disciplinary proceedings.

4. The facts of the case as arising from the records made available to this Court and as reflected in the writ petition, are to the effect that the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 26.03.2025 which contained a statement of allegations, a list of documents, and a list of witnesses. The petitioner was asked to file his written statement which he accordingly did on the 28^th of May, 2025. Not being satisfied with the reply filed by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority had appointed an enquiry officer and a presenting officer and the enquiry commenced.

5. The enquiry officer initiated the enquiry proceedings and examined as many as 5 out of the six listed witnesses. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to submit his statement of defence, which he duly did. The enquiry proceedings were concluded by submission of the enquiry report by the enquiry officer on 02.06.2025.

6. The petitioner was thereafter served a second show-cause notice, although the date in the notice appears to be a typographical error. The petitioner replied to the second show-cause notice. Taking into account the allegation and the defence made, the disciplinary authority had proceeded to impose the punishment of dismissal upon service on the petitioner with effect from 10.07.2025. The appeal preferred by the petitioner herein also came to be dismissed.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the disciplinary proceedings had suffered from gross illegalities, inasmuch as, in the enquiry proceedings he was not allowed the assistance of a defence assistant, he was not allowed the opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses which were produced on behalf of the disciplinary authority, the enquiry report has been prepared without giving any opportunity to address the submissions of presenting officer etc.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the second show-cause notice has been issued with a pre conceived mind about the guilt of the petitioner and the same would be apparent by the language of the second show cause notice itself.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the disciplinary authority had passed the impugned orders without reference to the reply given by the petitioner to the second show cause notice and therefore, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire proceedings require the interference of this Court.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that on the same cause of action two show-cause notices were issued to the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the first show-cause notice had already stated that the changes was proved beyond reasonable doubt. No reason for disagreement was given while issuing a second show-cause notice again holding the charges to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issuance of two show-cause notices on the same cause of action is not permissible, therefore, when the first show-cause notice had already been replied to, the disciplinary authority was not authorized to impose punishment based on the second show-cause notice.

12. Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, has submitted that