Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Gau) 1133

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Kaushik Goswami, J.
Sri Jai Prakash Sarma, S/o- Late Nand Kishore Shastri - Petitioner
Versus
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. - Respondent
W.P.(C) NO.5834 OF 2017
Decided On : 09-06-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. H. K. Das, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. M. P. Sarma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. S. Dutta, Advocate.

While courts cannot sit in appeal over disciplinary findings, judicial review is permissible to quash conclusions as perverse if they are based on mere speculation, conjectures, or a complete absence of evidence, ensuring that natural justice is maintained.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Judicial review of departmental proceedings - Scope of interference - Court cannot re-appreciate evidence as an appellate body but must ensure findings are not perverse - Findings must be supported by evidence and not merely based on conjecture or suspicion - An order based on no evidence or findings that defy logic is liable to be set aside to prevent injustice. (Paras 14, 18, 20, 29, 31)

(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - Standard of proof - Quasi-judicial nature - Charges must be established on the basis of legally admissible material meeting the test of preponderance of probability - Where there is a total absence of evidence connecting the employee to the alleged misconduct, the disciplinary action cannot be sustained. (Paras 19, 20, 24)

(C) Disciplinary Authority - Disagreement with Enquiry Officer - Any disagreement with findings of an enquiry officer must be backed by cogent reasons and evidence - An arbitrary reversal of findings without substantive proof vitiates the entire process. (Paras 23, 24)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an employee, challenged the order of penalty and the subsequent dismissal of his appeal by the disciplinary authority. The allegations centered on purported violations of internal underwriting guidelines and the alleged back-dating of a cover note to facilitate insurance coverage after a reported loss. The enquiry officer had held only one charge to be partially proved, but the disciplinary authority overruled this finding and imposed a major penalty.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the disciplinary authority acted on assumptions and surmises rather than evidence. There was no material to establish that internal circulars were known to the employee at the material time or that he manipulated records. The court held that the documentary evidence relied upon by the authorities did not support the inference of misconduct.

Issues: The main issues were whether the findings of the disciplinary authority were perverse due to lack of evidence, and whether the court could interfere with the disciplinary penalty in the absence of a proper evidentiary basis.

Ratio Decidendi: A departmental finding is considered perverse if it ignores relevant evidence or is based on facts that are purely speculative. While the scope of judicial review is limited, it is mandatory for the court to interfere when the conclusion of guilt is unsupported by any evidence, as this constitutes a fundamental failure of the decision-making process.

Result: Petition allowed. Disciplinary and appellate orders set aside and quashed.

Table of Content
1. factual history regarding issuance of charges, disciplinary findings, and appeal status. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. summary of rival contentions regarding evidence existence and scope of writ jurisdiction. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
3. the scope of judicial review is limited to checking procedural correctness and presence of substantial evidence. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. findings by disciplinary authorities based on conjecture rather than evidence are perverse and subject to reversal. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
5. judicial intervention and direction for full restoration of service status and benefits. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)

JUDGMENT :

Kaushik Goswami, J.

Heard Mr. H. K. Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M. P. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The present writ petition, instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calls in question the order of penalty dated 15.02.2012 passed by the disciplinary authority imposing upon the petitioner the penalty of reduction of basic pay by two stages permanently, with consequential reduction in dearness allowance and other allowances, under Rule 23(f) of the New India Assurance Company Ltd. (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003. The disciplinary authority further directed recovery of Rs.30,000/- under Rule 23(c) towards the alleged financial loss suffered by the respondent Company in connection with MACT Case No. 218/2003. Also under challenge is the appellate order dated 28.03.2013 whereby the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner on 15.06.2012 was dismissed and the order of penalty was affirmed.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as an Assistant Administrative Officer (Development) in the respondent company and had been posted at the Tinsukia Branch. In the month of July, 1999, the petitioner was discharging his duties in the aforesaid branch. During that time the petitioner was also promoted as Asstt. Administrative Officer (A.A.O.) for the second time in the same rank on 01.06.2001 and was posted at Doomdooma Branch with marketing assignments of the respondent company, wherein he served in that capacity till January 2011. Thereafter, he was transferred to the Regional Office at Guwahati from the Doomdooma Branch. Despite his posting at the Regional Office, he was not assigned any job, and later on he was again transferred to the Noonmati Branch, Guwahati, w.e.f. 27.07.2011.

4. The petitioner, while working as an A.A.O. at Doomdooma on 16.09.2009, was served with a memo of charge in departmental proceedings containing two charges framed by the competent authority along with articles of charges, statement of imputation, list of documents and list of witnesses which were sought to be proved and examined during a regular enquiry. The petitioner was accordingly given 15 days’ time to submit his written statement of defence against those charges. The petitioner was, however, informed that the enquiry would be held only in those articles of charge and allegations which were not admitted by the petitioner. He was further given the opportunity to take the assistance of any other co-employee if he desired assistance during presenting his case before the enquiry authority.

5. The articles of charges framed against the petitioner read as under: -

“1. It is alleged that Mr. J.P. Sharma issued Motor Covernote No. GHY/98-CN-73578 on 20.7.01 at 5 PM by granting insurance to the vehicle in contravention of underwriting guidelines of without any pre-insurance physical inspection of the said vehicle no ASQ-8151 and obtaining the incomplete proposal form, Mr JP Sharma violated RO guidelines RO circular dated 28.2.2000 for acceptance of motor proposal when there is in break in insurance. This he facilitated the insured Sri Shyam Pd. Agarwal, in obtaining insurance of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(Gau) 1133

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)Kaushik Goswami, J.Sri Jai Prakash Sarma, S/o- Late Nand Kishore Shastri - PetitionerVersusThe New India Assurance Company Ltd. - RespondentW.P.(C) NO.5834 OF 2017Decided On : 09-06-2026

While courts cannot sit in appeal over disciplinary findings, judicial review is permissible to quash conclusions as perverse if they are based on mere speculation, conjectures, or a complete absence of evidence, ensuring that natural justice is maintained.

Cases Referred (5)

Judicial Analysis

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Kaushik Goswami, J.
Sri Jai Prakash Sarma, S/o- Late Nand Kishore Shastri - Petitioner
Versus
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. - Respondent
W.P.(C) NO.5834 OF 2017
Decided On : 09-06-2026