Disciplinary actions must satisfy the test of reasonableness. Imposing severe penalties for absence during a global health crisis without considering extenuating circumstances beyond the employee’s control is arbitrary, and including past conduct in a charge-sheet to influence punishment before proving current misconduct demonstrates institutional bias.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. D. K. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1. I have also heard Mr. H. K. Das, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. N. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4.

2. The petitioner herein has filed the instant writ petition, being aggrieved by the Removal Order, being No. CJM/CHA/597-01/2024 dated 05.03.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Charaideo, Sonari as well as the Order dated 19.07.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority cum District Judge, Charaideo, in an appeal against the Disciplinary Proceeding Case No. 01/2024.

CONSPECTUS OF FACTS :

3. The brief facts which led to filing of the present petition are –

(A) COVID-19 pandemic spread across the World, sometime in the month of March, 2020. In order to prevent the spread of COVID-19, in the middle of March 2020, the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs as well as the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare had passed various directions curbing the movement of the people in an unforeseen and unprecedented manner and the Assam State Disaster Management Authority had also passed various directions regarding the same.

(B) It may not be out of place to mention here that at that relevant point of time, if a person was seen wandering in the streets, the person was arrested, by invoking the power under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and a person, who is found sneezing or having a fever, is put in containment zones. If a person gets infected by COVID-19 virus, a stigma gets attached not only to him, but also to his entire family.

(C) In the backdrop of the above, it is pertinent to take note of that all the Courts within the jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court were shut down during that time. However, sometime later, in the month of May 2020, on account of situations requiring extreme urgent matters to be heard, some Courts started functioning with a staggered roster.

(D) It may not entirely be out of place to take note of that the Supreme Court also, in WP(C) Suo-Moto Case No. 01/2020, passed various orders, relaxing the period of limitation by taking into account the various difficulties which a litigant would face.

(E) The petitioner, who was working as a Grade-IV employee, has his native village situated at a distance of 21 kms from his office. The petitioner, during the period of COVID-19 pandemic, went to his native village at Adabari Chetia Handique Gaon and could not return on account of the various restrictions imposed by the Government during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it is seen from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 that for the period from 01.06.2020 to 06.07.2020, the petitioner was put in the staggered roster and more particularly, in Group-B, vide an order dated 30.05.2020.

(F) The petitioner could not attend his duty during the said period from 01.06.2020 to 06.07.2020 on account of there being no public transportation available during the relevant point of time and also for the fact that the petitioner did not had any private vehicle of his own. Be that as it may, the petitioner, on 09.07.2020, attended his office. On that day, a show-cause notice was issued to him by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivasagar, Assam dated 06.07.2020 alleging inter- alia that the petitioner was absent from his office since 01.06.2020 till 06.07.2020, excluding the de-roster