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) 785

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
Bhaskar Jyoti Nath S/o Ananda Nath – Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam and Others – Respondents
WP (C) No. 4661 of 2020
Decided On : 29-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : B. Chakraborty, S.P. Hazarika
For the Respondents: B.J. Talukdar, P.K. Medhi

The failure to furnish an enquiry report to an employee before the imposition of a penalty and the enquiry officer assuming the dual role of judge and prosecutor are violations of natural justice that vitiate the disciplinary process.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Rules of Natural Justice - Failure to appoint a presenting officer and failure to furnish the enquiry report prior to the imposition of penalty - The enquiry officer acting as a prosecutor violates the principles of natural justice - Bias is inherent when the roles of judge and prosecutor are conflated. (Paras 12, 13, 14)

(B) Disciplinary Authority - Duty to supply enquiry report - Every employee has a right to receive a copy of the enquiry report to enable a meaningful representation against the findings before the disciplinary authority acts upon it - Failure to furnish the report constitutes a denial of a reasonable opportunity to defend and results in a breach of natural justice, particularly when a major penalty is imposed. (Paras 16, 17)

Facts of the case:
A member of a uniformed service faced a disciplinary proceeding for unauthorized absence and refusal to undergo training. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of withholding three annual increments with cumulative effect. The employee challenged the order, alleging that the inquiry was biased because no presenting officer was appointed, the enquiry officer acted as a prosecutor, and the inquiry report was not furnished prior to the decision.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the enquiry officer had assumed the role of both judge and prosecutor, which created a clear impression of bias and violated established principles of natural justice. Additionally, the failure to supply the enquiry report to the employee before the final disciplinary order was issued deprived the employee of a valuable right to defend himself, resulting in manifest prejudice.

Issues: Whether the disciplinary proceeding was vitiated due to procedural irregularities, specifically the absence of a presenting officer, the dual role assumed by the enquiry officer, and the non-disclosure of the enquiry report.

Ratio Decidendi: The principles of natural justice require that an adjudicator remain entirely impartial. When an enquiry officer acts as a prosecutor, it undermines the fundamental right to an unbiased hearing. Furthermore, the right to receive the enquiry report is a mandatory procedural safeguard; its denial, especially in cases resulting in major penalties, constitutes a fundamental breach of fair procedure.

Result: The order of penalty was set aside. Given the length of time taken by the litigation, the court did not order a de-novo enquiry and directed the restoration of service benefits and payment of arrears.

Table of Content
1. factual history regarding departmental proceedings and initiation of the writ. (Para 2 , 3)
2. parties' contentions on enquiry fairness, presenting officers, and cross-examination. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. separation of roles between an enquiry officer and a prosecutor to ensure bias-free adjudication. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. requirement of providing the enquiry report to the delinquent prior to penalty imposition. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
5. granting relief based on procedural violations while considering the time elapsed since the order. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

1. Heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. P.K. Medhi, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present writ petition has presented a challenge to an order dated 16-10-2014, issued by the Disciplinary Authority, imposing upon the petitioner a penalty of withholding of 03 (three) annual increments with cumulative effect, on conclusion of a Departmental Proceeding instituted against the petitioner.

3. The petitioner while working as a Sub-Inspector, Basistha Police Station, was placed under suspension pending drawl of the Departmental Proceeding against him. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Kokrajhar, as Disciplinary Authority, proceeded to issue a show-cause notice dated 01-07-2013, to the petitioner, instituting a Departmental Proceeding against him. The allegations levelled against the petitioner in the show-cause notice was to the effect that he was found to have been remained unauthorisedly absent, w.e.f. 27-01-2013 till 06-02-2013. It was further alleged that the petitioner was detailed to undergo Advance Course on Investigation and Detention of Crime, to be held on CDTS, Kolkata w.e.f. 16-04-2012 to 27-04-2013, however, the petitioner had not attended the said training by submitting a prayer petition for deferring his participation in the said training by 01 (one) day on account of unavoidable family issue. The further allegation against the petitioner was that he being detailed for pilot duty with the former Prime Minister of Bhutan on 02-06-2013 at 07:00 am from the district border Champa Bridge to Srirampur, the petitioner was found to have remained unauthorisedly absent from his duty. The petitioner on receipt of the said show-cause notice, submitted his show-cause reply, thereto, on 06-07-2013 and denied the allegations levelled against him. The reply submitted by the petitioner not being found to be satisfactory, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 15-07-2013, proceeded to direct for holding of an enquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner and for the purpose appointed an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer, thereafter, conducted an enquiry and on conclusion of the same submitted his enquiry report. The Disciplinary Authority, basing on the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, without furnishing a copy, thereof, to the petitioner, proceeded vide order dated 16-10-2014 to impose a penalty of withholding of 03 (three) annual increments with cumulative effect upon the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved, submitted an appeal before the Appellate Authority through the Disciplinary Authority on 21-09-2015. However, the same was rejected vide a communication dated 29-09-2015 issued by the Disciplinary Authority by holding that the period of limitation to prefer an appeal before the higher authority, i.e. the Inspector General of Police (IGP), BTAD, Kokrajhar, was over.

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

4. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner after reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the Disciplinary Authority while directing for conduct of an enquiry in the matter against the petitioner had proceeded vide order dated 15-07-2013, to appoint as Enquir

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top