Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Gau) 1140

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Shamima Jahan, J.
Sushanta Kr Sarma, S/O Late Kamini Kanta Sarma – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam Represented By The Additional Secretary To The Govt. Of Assam, Public Health Engineering And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) 522 of 2024
Decided On : 04-06-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr S Borthakur, Sr. Adv. Mr S U Ahmed.
For the Respondent: Mr I Borthakur

Disciplinary inquiries must strictly adhere to procedural mandates, ensuring charges are definite, material evidence is disclosed to the delinquent, and oral evidence is recorded to establish guilt, even during ex-parte proceedings. Failure to follow these steps constitutes a flagrant violation of natural justice and due process.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 311(2) - Principles of natural justice - Departmental inquiry - Procedure for imposing major penalties - Disciplinary authority is mandated to frame definite, clear, and specific charges to provide the delinquent effective opportunity for defense - Failure to disclose material documents or allow inspection violates constitutional and procedural safeguards. (Paras 35, 36, 42)

(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - Preliminary inquiry - Purpose is to assess if a prima facie case exists for a regular inquiry, not to act as a substitute - Reliance on preliminary reports or secret correspondence to establish guilt without furnishing copies to the delinquent is legally impermissible. (Paras 19, 21, 27)

(C) Ex-parte inquiry - Even in the absence of the delinquent, the disciplinary authority must produce necessary evidence and record witness statements to establish charges - Acting as both prosecutor and judge by skipping mandatory evidentiary stages renders the inquiry record insufficient and invalid. (Paras 40, 41)

Facts of the case:
A public servant was accused of financial impropriety in the implementation of a government welfare scheme. A preliminary inquiry was conducted, leading to the issuance of a show cause notice. The disciplinary authority subsequently imposed a penalty of dismissal from service. The public servant challenged the order of dismissal, contending that the charges were vague, he was denied access to relevant documents, and the inquiry process lacked the recording of oral evidence or cross-examination, violating the established service rules and constitutional guarantees.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the disciplinary proceedings were procedurally flawed. The charges were not detailed, documents relied upon by the conducting officer were withheld from the petitioner and the disciplinary authority failed to examine witnesses despite the inquiry being conducted ex-parte, thereby denying the delinquent a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.

Issues: Whether the disciplinary inquiry and the subsequent order of dismissal were vitiated by procedural irregularities and a violation of the principles of natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi: The principles of natural justice are non-negotiable in departmental proceedings. An inquiry is vitiated if it relies on undisclosed documents, fails to prove charges through recorded evidence, or if the initial charge sheet lacks the specificity required for a reasonable defense. Procedural fairness is an essential component of due process.

Result: Petition allowed; the order of dismissal is quashed with a direction for reinstatement.

Table of Content
1. overview of parties and nature of service dispute. (Para 1 , 2)
2. factual history regarding appointment, allegations, and disciplinary proceedings initiated. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. petitioner asserts procedural lapses and lack of fair opportunity. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. respondent argues petitioner was adequately informed and denies procedural prejudice. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. legal nature, purpose, and limitations of preliminary departmental inquiries. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
6. requirement of providing documents and conducting evidentiary hearings. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
7. necessity of specific charges and natural justice in ex-parte inquiries. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
8. quashing dismissal, ordering reinstatement due to procedural invalidity. (Para 43 , 44)

JUDGMENT :

Shamima Jahan, J.

Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr S U Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr I Borthakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. By this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside and quashing of the impugned order dated 20.12.2023, issued by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, Public Health Engineering (PHE, for short), by which the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to re-instated him in service as Junior Engineer, PHE, with all consequential service benefits.

FACTS:

3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed in the office of the Superintendent Engineer, PHE, Nalbari Circle as a Junior Engineer on 12.01.1990, and thereafter, he was transferred to various divisions within the State. During his service tenure as Junior Engineer in the PHE Department, Tinsukia Division, an allegation was made against him that he had committed gross anomalies in payment of bills against Self Help Groups (‘SHGs’, for short)/Non-Governmental Organizations (‘NGOs’, for short), who have constructed individual household latrines under Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin) (‘SBM(G)’, for short). It was further alleged that the petitioner had not paid the amounts raised by submitting the bills to the said SHGs/NGOs, but paid to some hardware stores owned by Sewali Sarma Gogoi etc. An FIR was lodged on 18.06.2019, with the aforesaid allegations and a case was registered as Tinsukia PS Case No. 864/2019, under Sections 420 and 409 of the IPC.

4. Simultaneously, a letter dated 18.06.2019 was written by the Executive Engineer (PHE), Tinsukia Division, to the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia District, stating, inter alia, that the petitioner has misappropriated a massive amount of Government money to the tune of Rs. 4.60 crores. It was further stated that the said money was allotted for construction of household latrines under SBM(G), which was to be paid to the SHGs/NGOs, but the same was transferred to the account of private persons and that in the context of the same, the FIR was lodged.

5. Thereafter, by the order dated 19th of June, 2019, the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia, had entrusted two officers to conduct a joint enquiry and to submit a detailed report. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued on 8th of July, 2019, to the petitioner by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, PHE Department, by order and in the name of the Governor of Assam. By the said show cause notice, issued under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter, referred to as the 1964 Rules), read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India, it was intimated to the petitioner that while he was serving as Junior Engineer in the Tinsukia Division, he had misappropriated Government money violating Rule 3 of Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter for short, ‘the Conduct Rules,1965’). It was also

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Gau) 1140

Cases Referred (10)