Back
2026 Supreme(Gau) 718
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Arun Dev Choudhury, J.
Prasanta Kumar Borah S/O Late Jonaram Borah – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam Represented By The Commissioner And Secretary To The Govt. Of Assam, Panchayat And Rural Development And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) 3034 of 2025
Decided On : 20-03-2026
For the Petitioner: Mr. B D Konwar Sr. Adv., Mrs J M Konwar, Mr J Singh, Mr P Doley, Ms. S Bhuyan, Mr H Agarwal
For the Respondent: Mr. D. Bora, Ga, Assam, Mr. K. Konwar, Sc, P And R.D.,Mr. J Handique, Sc, Revenue, Mr. A. K. Ghose, counsel , Mr. S. Dutta, counsel, Mr. T. C. Chutia, GA
Disciplinary proceedings against a public official are legally unsustainable if they proceed without disclosing the foundational complaints. Procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice mandate a meaningful, effective hearing, which requires the prior disclosure of all incriminating materials and allegations to the implicated individual.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 and Article 311 - Right to Information Act, 2005 - Dismissal from civil post - Principles of natural justice - Requirement of fair procedure in administrative inquiries.
(B) Administrative Law - Disciplinary proceedings - Duty to disclose materials - A hearing is rendered an empty formality if the foundational material and complaints are not disclosed to the incumbent before the initiation of an enquiry. An order of removal based on undisclosed facts is fundamentally flawed and violates the mandate of procedural fairness. (Paras 24, 36, 41)
(C) Service Law - Public office protection - Executive instructions - The authority to suspend or remove a public official must be exercised in strict compliance with the prescribed procedural safeguards. This includes providing the incumbent with a reasonable opportunity to be heard after full disclosure of allegations, failing which the entire process stands vitiated. (Paras 33, 46, 47)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an order that divested them of their functions and withheld their honorarium following an inquiry initiated by complaints. The petitioner contended that they were denied a fair hearing as the complaints were never disclosed, while the state argued that the petitioner failed to appear for the scheduled inquiry. The petitioner further claimed that any prior admissions were obtained under coercion.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the inquiry was procedurally flawed because the foundational complaints were not provided to the petitioner. The court emphasized that administrative actions resulting in civil consequences must adhere to transparency and the right to a meaningful hearing, which necessarily includes the disclosure of all relied-upon materials.
Issues: The primary issues were whether the disciplinary enquiry was sustainable despite the non-disclosure of the foundational complaints and whether the petitioner was denied the procedural protections mandated for the holder of a civic-related post.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that an enquiry leading to adverse civil consequences is vitiated if the foundation of the case is not shared with the affected party. Procedural fairness is a mandatory requirement for executive decisions, and the failure to provide the complaints undermines the effectiveness of the hearing, necessitating a fresh inquiry conducted in line with established legal procedures.
Result: Petition disposed of; respondents directed to conduct a fresh enquiry after providing the petitioner with all relevant materials and to release the admissible honorarium.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background facts regarding enquiry and removal of gram pradhan. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 2. arguments concerning article 311 protection and natural justice. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 3. gram pradhan status as civil post warrants procedural fairness. (Para 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 4. denial of access to underlying complaints violates natural justice. (Para 23 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 5. directions for fair de novo enquiry and honorarium release. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
JUDGMENT :
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
1. Heard, Mr. B. D. Konwar, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. H. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. K. Ghose, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, and Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, as well as Mr. T. C. Chutia, learned Government Advocate, Assam, for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5.
2. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calls in question the order dated 10.07.2024, issued by the District Commissioner, Sonitpur, Tezpur whereby an enquiry was directed against the petitioner, Gram Pradhan of Lot 11, Village-Bamunchuburi, Mouza- Bhairabpad and pending such enquiry, his function was divested and assigned to another Gram Pradhan.
3. The petitioner also assails the consequential position reflected in the reply furnished under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act for short), indicating his removal and withholding of his honorarium.
4. The action originates from certain complaints alleged to have been lodged against the petitioner, which prompted the concerned District Commissioner to initiate the enquiry through the Circle Officer, Tezpur Revenue Circle.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that, despite awaiting the outcome of the enquiry and for an opportunity of hearing, no communication whatsoever was forthcoming. Left with no alternative, the petitioner submitted an application under the RTI Act through his Advocate seeking information regarding the status of the enquiry.
6. The reply furnished under the RTI Act reveals that the petitioner has been removed from his position as Gram Pradhan and that his honorarium has been withheld for consideration at a later stage.
7. The petitioner has also assailed the said decision of removal/termination, as reflected in the RTI response, in the present proceeding.
8. The State respondents, more particularly the District Commissioner, Sonitpur, Tezpur has filed an affidavit taking a specific stand that, during the course of the enquiry, the petitioner was duly called upon to appear for a hearing and to record his statement, but he failed to do so on the scheduled date.
9. It is further contended that subsequent to the enquiry, the petitioner visited the office of the concerned officer and explained that on the grounds of apprehension of being assaulted by Members of the public, he did not appear and that he did admit his guilt in writing.
10. The petitioner, in his reply affidavit, reiterated his apprehension of a threat to his safety and alleged that he was compelled by the respondent No. 4 to write and sign the statement as dictated to him, upon an assurance that it would not be treated as an admission of guilt or misconduct.
11. According to the petitioner, the said statement was obtained under circumstances of coercion and risk, thereby rendering it unreliable.
12. Insofar as multiple complaints are concerned, the petitioner's stand is that, even after filing the RTI application, the respondent authorities failed to furnish copies of all three complaints to the petitioner.
13. It is thus urged that the very foundation of the enquiry, premised on an undisclosed complaint, is unsustainable in law. It is further contended that the only complaint furnished under the RTI Act does not pertain to the petitioner in his official capacity, but relates to the cond
