2026 Supreme(Gau) 756

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) 
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Aoicharjya Jibon Baruah, S/o. Apurba Jibon Baruah – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam, Represented By The Additional Chief Secretary – Respondent
WP(C) 1380 of 2025, I.A.(Civil) 1564 of 2025, I.A.(Civil) 954 of 2025, WP(C) 6439 of 2024, I.A.(Civil) 945 of 2025, WP(C) 5971 of 2024, WP(C) 537 of 2025, WP(C) 572 of 2025, I.A.(Civil) 1321 of 2025, I.A.(Civil) 1165 of 2025, WP(C) 1391 of 2025, I.A.(Civil) 982 of 2025, WP(C) 5249 of 2024, I.A.(Civil) 1319 of 2025, WP(C) 6191 of 2024, I.A.(Civil) 1152 of 2025, I.A.(Civil) 1013 of 2025, WP(C) 4668 of 2024, WP(C) 540 of 2025, WP(C) 562 of 2025, WP(C) 538 of 2025, I.A.(Civil) 631 of 2025, WP(C) 536 of 2025, I.A.(Civil) 1164 of 2025, I.A.(Civil) 922 of 2025, (Civil) 929 of 2025, WP(C) 5754 of 2024, WP(C) 3705 of 2024, I.A.(Civil) 1107 of 2025, WP(C) 532 of 2025, WP(C) 5594 of 2024, WP(C) 3698 of 2024, I.A.(Civil) 1516 of 2025, I.A.(Civil) 948 of 2025, I.A.(Civil) 1153 of 2025, I.A.(Civil) 1147 of 2025, I.A.(Civil) 1695 of 2025, WP(C) 1382 of 2025, I.A.(Civil) 1565 of 2025, WP(C) 561 of 2025, I.A.(Civil) 1163 of 2025, WP(C) 5381 of 2024, WP(C) 573 of 2025, I.A.(Civil) 1181 of 2025, I.A.(Civil) 1070 of 2025, WP(C) 542 of 2025, I.A.(Civil) 1071 of 2025, WP(C) 539 of 2025, WP(C) 5768 of 2024, WP(C) 574 of 2025, I.A.(Civil) 1106 of 2025, WP(C) 6856 of 2024, WP(C) 5666 of 2024, I.A.(Civil) 1166 of 2025, WP(C) 5862 of 2024, I.A.(Civil) 1162 of 2025, I.A.(Civil) 2827 of 2025, I.A.(Civil) 1171 of 2025, WP(C) 832 of 2025, I.A.(Civil) 1318 of 2025, WP(C) 566 of 2025, I.A.(Civil) 1687 of 2025, I.A.(Civil) 1248 of 2025, WP(C) 5552 of 2024, WP(C) 541 of 2025, WP(C) 5229 of 2024, I.A.(Civil) 1659 of 2025, WP(C) 5483 of 2024, WP(C) 5770 of 2024, I.A.(Civil) 634 of 2025, I.A.(Civil) 1668 of 2025, I.A.(Civil) of 201 of 2025, WP(C) 5610 of 2024, WP(C) 1929 of 2025, WP(C) 535 of 2025, WP(C) 533 of 2025, WP(C) 5384 of 2024, I.A.(Civil) 927 of 2025, I.A.(Civil) 632 of 2025, WP(C) 534 of 2025, WP(C) 6311 of 2024, WP(C) 568 of 2025, I.A.(Civil) 2436 of 2025,  
Decided On : 01-04-2026

Inquiry commissions must strictly adhere to statutory procedures regarding the rights of individuals whose conduct or reputation is scrutinized. Findings derived from commissions that violate these mandatory safeguards cannot be utilized as the basis for disciplinary actions against the affected persons, while suspension orders require periodic review.

Headnote:(A) Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 - Sections 8B and 8C - Inquiry Commission - Procedural safeguards - Rights of participants likely to be prejudicially affected - Mandatory nature of statutory protection - Principles of natural justice incorporated into statute - Violation of mandatory procedure renders report observations non-est - Commission proceedings are fact-finding and inquisitorial, but must adhere to statutory requirements regarding notice, right to evidence, and right to cross-examination once conduct is inquired into - Failure to provide these rights mandates that findings cannot be used against affected individuals. (Paras 60, 68, 79, 83, 99, 100)

(B) Administrative Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Initiation of inquiry - Reliance on flawed commission reports - Doctrine of severability in administrative orders - If disciplinary action relies on extraneous or vitiated findings, the underlying order/action must be purged of such reliance - Authority may proceed with disciplinary action based on untainted materials, provided proper procedures are observed - Opportunity for delinquent to defend must be strictly protected, including access to evidence and witnesses. (Paras 115, 117-120, 126, 127)

(C) Service Law - Suspension - Protracted suspension - Need for periodic review - Suspension should not be open-ended where criminal and departmental proceedings are pending - Human dignity and speedy trial rights necessitate periodic assessment of public interest in continuing suspension - Court may command review to ensure suspension is not maintained indefinitely without valid administrative justification. (Paras 134, 138)

Facts of the case:
The petitions challenge the initiation of departmental proceedings against several government employees based on reports submitted by inquiry commissions investigating anomalies in competitive examinations. The petitioners argued that the commission's inquiries were conducted in violation of mandatory statutory provisions, specifically denying them the rights of hearing, evidence production, and cross-examination guaranteed to persons whose conduct or reputation are at stake.

Findings of Court:
The commission failed to follow the mandatory statutory procedures regarding the rights of participants whose conduct was being scrutinized, rendering the findings and recommendations against the petitioners, as they relate to these individuals, legally unenforceable in disciplinary forums, though the reports themselves were not quashed in their entirety due to their utility for administrative policy and public interest.

Issues: Whether the inquiry commissions violated mandatory statutory rights of participants and if such violations invalidate the use of commission reports for subsequent disciplinary proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory safeguards for persons likely to be affected by an inquiry are fundamental mandates of natural justice. When an authority initiates disciplinary action based on findings from a process that bypassed these statutory protections, the affected individuals cannot be held accountable on the basis of such vitiated findings, although independent administrative action may continue if supported by untainted evidence.

Result: Petitions disposed of with directions to exclude reliance on the vitiated commission reports in disciplinary proceedings, granting the administration liberty to proceed based on non-tainted evidence and mandating periodic review of long-standing suspension orders.

Table of Content
1. limitation of judicial review to non-compliance of inquiry act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. factual basis of the commission's inquiry into apsc anomalies. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
3. parties' contentions regarding section 8b and 8c violations. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
4. commission violated statutory natural justice requirements under sections 8b/8c. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107)
5. disciplinary proceedings restricted to independent evidence, excluding commission findings. (Para 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127)
6. protracted suspension requires periodical review per public interest. (Para 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138)
7. final orders and directions for remedial actions. (Para 139)

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. T. Kashyap, the learned counsel; Mr. A. Chowdhury, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. B. Chowdhury, the learned counsel as well as Mr. Y.S. Mannan; Mr. M. Bhuyan; Mr. A.K. Baruah; Mr. T. Deuri; Mr. L. Wangsa and Mr. A. Atreya, the learned counsels representing the respective writ Petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions. Also heard Mr. N. Kohli, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Roy and Ms. N. Menon, the learned counsels as well as Mr. D. Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam, representing the State of Assam.

2. The present batch of writ petitions challenge the initiation of the Departmental Proceedings against the writ Petitioners on the basis of 2 (two) reports submitted by the One Man Commission appointed by the State of Assam for the Combined Competitive Examination (CCE), 2013 and Combined Competitive Examination (CCE),2014.

3. At the outset it is relevant to take note of that in some of the writ petitions a contention has been urged questioning upon the legality and validity of the continuation of the Departmental Proceedings pending the criminal proceedings.

4. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel along with the other learned counsels for the writ Petitioners submitted that the writ petitions where they are representing, their writ petitions should be restricted only to the question of the legality and validity of the reports submitted by the One-Man Commission and whether on the basis of the said reports the Departmental Proceedings against them can be initiated as the said reports are in violation to the rights of the Petitioners under Section 8B and Section 8C of the Commission on Inquiry Act, 1952.

5. Mr. N. Kohli, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Assam also submitted that as the writ petitioners do not want to insist on their contention regarding the legality and validity of the continuation of parallel proceedings pertaining to Departmental Proceedings and criminal proceedings, the batch of writ petitions be decided on the question of the legality and validity of the reports submitted by the One-Man Commission and whether the Departmental Proceedings can be initiated and continued.

6. In view of the above submissions, the present adjudication is limited to the legality and validity of the reports submitted by the One-Man Commission and its effect upon the Departmental Proceedings initiated against the Petitioners and other consequential actions.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASES

7. It has been submitted at the bar that the facts in all the writ petitions are similar except in the case of the writ petitio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document