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

2025 Supreme(Gau) 2330

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.
Nipu Kalita, S/O- Late Jogen Kalita – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam To Be Represented By The Commissioner And Secretary To The Government Of Assam, Department Of Home And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) 7032 of 2023
Decided On : 19-06-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr I Rafique, Ms A Afreen,Ms. R. R. Saikia,Mrs S A Choudhury
For the Respondent: GA, ASSAM

In disciplinary proceedings, findings must be based on evidence properly adduced; documents not exhibited through witnesses cannot be relied upon. Penalty imposed on unsubstantiated conclusions is unsustainable.

Headnote:(A) Assam Police Act, 2007 - Section 65 - Assam Police Manual Part-III - Rule 66 - Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 - Rule 7 - Constitution of India - Article 311 - Departmental enquiry - Evidence - Documents must be exhibited through witnesses - Findings based on unexhibited documents are unsustainable - Disciplinary authority cannot go beyond enquiry officer's findings without issuing a disagreement note - Penalty of dismissal from service set aside - Reinstatement with back wages ordered. (Paras 20-25)

(B) Departmental Enquiry - Scope of judicial review - Court may interfere if findings are not borne out from evidence on record - In a disciplinary proceeding, the standard of proof is preponderance of probability, but the conclusions must be supported by the materials adduced. (Paras 21, 23)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a police officer, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings based on a complaint filed after two years alleging that he, along with others, conducted an illegal search, seized foreign liquor without proper entry, wrongfully confined the complainant, and demanded a bribe. The Enquiry Officer found that the charges of taking bribe and wrongful confinement were not proved, but held that proceeding without a GD Entry and not depositing seized liquor in the Malkhana amounted to serious misconduct. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the findings and imposed dismissal from service, which was upheld on appeal. The petitioner challenged the orders.

Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the conclusions of the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority regarding the misconduct were not based on any evidence on record. No witness deposed about the failure to make a GD Entry or the improper handling of the seized liquor. The documents relied upon were not exhibited through any witness and thus could not be considered as evidence. The petitioner’s explanation that the search was conducted by a team led by another officer was not rebutted. Consequently, the orders of dismissal and the appellate order were quashed, and the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits and regularise the period as ‘on duty’.

Issues: (i) Whether the findings of misconduct against the petitioner were supported by legally admissible evidence in the departmental enquiry? (ii) Whether the disciplinary authority could impose a penalty based on conclusions not borne out from the evidence?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in a departmental enquiry, documents can be exhibited only through witnesses; if not so exhibited, they cannot be treated as evidence. The disciplinary authority’s conclusions must be based on the materials that are properly on record. Since there was no evidence to show that the petitioner acted without a GD Entry or failed to deposit the liquor, the penalty of dismissal could not be sustained. The court also noted that the disciplinary authority accepted findings partly in favour of the petitioner but still imposed a major penalty, which was unjustified. Result : Writ petition allowed; orders of dismissal and appellate order set aside; petitioner to be reinstated with arrears and consequential benefits within 15 days.

Legal Category Hierarchy

  • administrative law
    • disciplinary proceedings
      • misconduct (Para 15, 16, 19, 20)
      • dismissal (Para 23, 24, 25)
      • evidence
        • exhibition of documents (Para 21)
        • burden of proof (Para 19, 22)
    • judicial review (Para 1, 14, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27)

Table of Contents

1. Challenge to penalty of dismissal from service imposed in departmental inquiry under Assam Police Act, 2007. (Para 2 , 3 )

2. Petitioner contended allegations were not proved and disciplinary authority exceeded findings; respondent argued misconduct warranted dismissal. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )

3. Dismissal order set aside; petitioner reinstated with back pay for the period out of service. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 )

4. Can a disciplinary authority rely on documents not exhibited through witnesses in a departmental inquiry?

No, documents can only be exhibited through a witness; otherwise they are not evidence in the inquiry. (Para 21 )

5. Must disciplinary authority's findings be based on materials appearing in the inquiry record?

Yes, findings must be supported by witness statements or exhibited documents; conclusions not so supported are invalid. (Para 22 , 23 )

ORDER :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

Heard Mr. I. Rafique, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. K. Goswami, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate appearing for all the respondents.

2. The petitioner, by way of instituting the present proceeding has presented a challenge to an order dated 27.06.2023, issued by the Commandant Battalion Training Centre, Assam, Dergaon, imposing the penalty of dismissal of service upon the petitioner. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 08.11.2023, passed by the Appellate Authority, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner and thereby, upholding the order dated 27.06.2023, passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

3. The facts requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding is noticed as below: -

A complaint dated 19.05.2019 was filed by one Shri Shibobrata Nath against the petitioner herein, leveling certain allegations against him before the Secretary, State Police Accountability Commission (herein after referred as the Commission), Assam. The allegations leveled against the petitioner pertains to an incident occasioning on 09.05.2017 when the petitioner along with certain other police personnel had gone to the house of the complainant in civil dress and forcibly conducted a search therein. In the search nothing was stated to have been found but, the petitioner had asked two cartons of foreign liquor for his domestic function. It was further alleged in the complaint that the complainant was assaulted and wrongfully confined in Tarapur Town Out-Post (TOP) lockup. The complainant also alleged that he was released by the petitioner on the next day after having taken an amount of Rs. 2.75 lakh from his wife for the purpose.

The Commission, on consideration of the said complaint was pleased vide order dated 03.11.2020 to close the said proceeding with a direction to the Director General of Police, Assam, to initiate a departmental proceeding against the present petitioner. Basing on the said direction issued by the Commission, the Commissioner of Police, Guwahati, issued a show-cause dated 19.05.2021, under the provisions of Section 65 of the Assam Police Act, 2007 read with Rule 66 of ASSAM POLICE MANUAL Part-III and Article 311 of the Constitution of India, as to why penalty under Rule 7 of Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 shall not be imposed upon him. The allegation leveled against the petitioner in the said show-cause notice is the same allegation that was so involved in the complaint filed before the SPAC, Assam.

The petitioner, on receipt of the said show-cause notice submitted his written statement thereto, on 11.06.2021, denying the allegations and charges leveled against him. The written statement submitted by the petitioner not being found to be satisfactory, the Disciplinary Authority directed vide order dated 18.06.2021 to institute a departmental proceeding in the matter against the petitioner. Accordingly, D.P. No. 07/2021 was initiated against him. An Enquiry officer and a Presenting officer came to be so appointed for the purpose of conduct of the enquiry vide the same order. The Enquiry officer initiated the enquiry and therein examined two witnesses including the complainant in the complaint filed before the SPAC, Assam. The petitioner was also examined in the enquiry.

On completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry officer submitted her enquiry report dated 04.05.2023. A copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner and he also submitted a representation against the same. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 27.06.2023, on consideration of the materials coming on record in the enquiry as well as the representation submitted by the petitioner against the same, accepted the findings of the Enquiry officer and concluded the allegations leveled against him in the show-cause notice dated 19.05.2021 to have been established. Accordingly, a penalty of dismissal from service c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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