Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Gau) 1126

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Soumitra Saikia, J.
Amit Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
The Union Of India Rep. By The Secretary To The Ministry Of Home Affairs, Department Of Home, Government Of India, New Delhi And Ors – Respondents
WP(C) 3223 of 2025
Decided On : 04-06-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. L N Dihingia, Mr. A K Sahu
For the Respondent: Dy.S.G.I., Mr. U. K. Goswami, Sc, C.G.C.,Mr. R K D Choudhury (Deputy Solicitor General Of India)

Quasi-judicial authorities in disciplinary proceedings cannot delegate their power to sign final orders to subordinate officers. Such orders must be self-contained, reasoned, and signed by the specifically designated competent authority to maintain the validity and transparency of the administrative decision-making process.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Quasi-judicial functions - Delegation of powers - Appointment of authority - Decision of an appellate authority in disciplinary proceedings must be issued under the signature of the competent officer and cannot be delegated to subordinates - Issuance of final orders by a subordinate on behalf of the competent authority without specific authorization constitutes an infirmity in the decision-making process. (Paras 3, 9, 10, 11, 20, 21)

(B) Service Law - Disciplinary proceedings - Unauthorized absence - Requirement of speaking and reasoned orders - While disciplinary authorities are expected to consider mitigating factors such as personal or familial emergencies, the onus remains on the employee to intimate superiors regarding the inability to report for duty in a timely manner. (Paras 16, 17, 18, 19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was dismissed from service due to unauthorized absence beyond the approved leave period. The petitioner claimed that the overstay was necessitated by the need to act as a caregiver for an ailing parent. Although the petitioner eventually responded to disciplinary notices, the disciplinary authority passed a dismissal order. The petitioner's appeal against this order was dismissed, but the appellate order was signed by a subordinate officer on behalf of the appellate authority without evidence of proper delegation.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that disciplinary and appellate proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature and must be executed by the competent authority. The delegation of signing such orders to a subordinate without formal authorization violates established administrative guidelines regarding the necessity of reasoned, self-contained orders signed by the competent authority.

Issues: Whether the dismissal order of the petitioner was procedurally valid and whether the appellate authority lawfully discharged its function when signing the appellate order via a sub-ordinate officer.

Ratio Decidendi: An authority exercising quasi-judicial powers in disciplinary matters cannot delegate the signing of final orders to a subordinate. Such orders must be self-contained, reasoned, and signed by the designated competent authority to satisfy legal requirements ensuring the decision is not arbitrary.

Result: Petition allowed in part; matter remanded back to the appellate authority for a de novo decision with a speaking order signed by the competent authority.

JUDGMENT :

Soumitra Saikia, J.

Heard Mr. L. N. Dihingia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U. K. Goswami, learned CGC for the respondents.

2] This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 08.03.2025 passed by the disciplinary authority dismissing the petitioner from service under Rule 21 of the SSB RULES , 2009. The petitioner was appointed in the SSB on 05.05.2022. During the course of his service, the petitioner applied for and was granted leave from 26.09.2024 to 18.10.2024 and the leave certificate was issued by the competent authority on 25.09.2024. The petitioner thereafter, proceeded on leave. Although as per the leave certificate, the petitioner was to report back on duty on 18.10.2024 but the petitioner did not report back in time. Consequently, communications were issued by the SSB authorities by directing the petitioner to resume his duties. Since the petitioner did not resume his duties a Court of Enquiry was instituted under the Provisions of the SSB Act of 2007 read with SSB RULES . The Court of Enquiry was convened on 05.11.2024 and the same was stated to have been intimated to the petitioner.

3] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these communications were never received. According to the petitioner, he could not join his duties as he was the only caregiver to his ailing mother who was suffering from serious health ailments like jaundice, hepatitis and typhoid.

4] The Court of Enquiry thereafter, rendered an opinion dated 13.12.2024 recommending suitable action to be undertaken in respect of the petitioner. Accordingly, by order dated 27.01.2025, the petitioner was declared “DEEMED TO BE A DESERTER”. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, calling upon him to show cause as to why disciplinary action of dismissal or removal from service should not be initiated against him under Rule 21 of the SSB RULES .

5] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that none of these communications were received by the petitioner and therefore, he could not respond in time. The petitioner filed his reply on 13.02.2025, explaining the reasons why he could not join in his duties.

6] The authorities thereafter, upon considering the materials available and the opinion of the Court of Enquiry completed the enquiry by passing the impugned order of dismissal against the petitioner. By the impugned order of dismissal, the petitioner was dismissed from service and the period of unauthorized absence w.e.f. 18.10.2024 to 18.03.2025 was directed to be treated as dies-non.

7] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very initiation of disciplinary procedure is contrary to the provisions of the law. The Court of Enquiry did not arrive at any conclusion that the petitioner should be dismissed. The convening orders of the Court of Enquiry were never received by the petitioners and therefore, the petitioner was not aware that the Court of Enquiry was conducted and the petitioner would be required to be present. It is further submitted that the disciplinary authority did not examine the case of the petitioner in proper perspective and there was no finding by the authorities that the overstay on leave was not deliberate but for reasons beyond his control, which was the illness suffered by his mother as he is the only caregiver in the family therefore, he could not have left his mother unattended during the treatment.

8] The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions has pressed into service the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Krushnakant B. Parmar vs Union Of India & Anr. reported in 2012 (3) SCC 178 as also the judgments rendered by this Court in WP(C) No.3167/2016 (Subhas Chandra vs. Union of India and 6 Ors.).

9] The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appellate authority, which heard and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner is not the appropriate authority under the Rule 29

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Gau) 1126

Cases Referred (1)