Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010087092025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./60/2025 SRI MUKTA LAL NATH S/O LATE HARENDRA CHANDRA NATH, R/O VILL. NARSINGPUR, P.O. NARSINGPUR, PIN 788115, DISTRICT - CACHAR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. HOME DISPUR, GUWAHATI 6 2:THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE GUWAHATI - 7 ASSAM H.Q. ULUBARI. 2:THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE GUWAHATI-7 ASSAM HQ ULUBARI 3:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE COMMUNICATION ASSAM HQ ULUBARI GUWAHATI 3:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (COMMUNICATION) ASSAM H.Q. ULUBARI GUWAHATI 7 Page No.# 2/5 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE COMMUNICATION ASSAM GUWAHATI 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (COMMUNICATION) ASSAM GUWAHATI Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P KATAKI, MRS R BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 12.08.2025 Heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the review petitioner. Also heard Mr. TC Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, for he respondents. 2] This review petition is directed against the order dated 19.03.2025 passed in WP(C) No.2778 of 2021. The review petitioner before this Court as a petitioner has assailed the order of imposition of penalty by the Disciplinary Authority on a ground that the enquiry report served on the petitioner reveals that the Enquiry Officer concluded that the charges leveled against the petitioner were not proved. It is therefore submitted before this Court that before the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment on the petitioner, it was incumbent on the Disciplinary Authority to issue a disagreement note under Section 9(A) of the Assam Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1964, as the Disciplinary Authority in the impugned order had clearly reflected that it had agreed to the findings of the Enquiry Officer. If that be so and in view of the fact that the Enquiry Officer Page No.# 3/5 concluded that the charges against the writ petitioner did not stand proved, there was no occasion for the Disciplinary Authority to agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and also imposed punishment by the impugned order dated 19.09.2012. 3] During the course of hearing the records were called for and upon perusal of the records, it was seen that the enquiry report which came to be served on the petitioner and the enquiry report available on the records were at variants. The enquiry report in the records revealed that the Enquiry Officer in a sense concluded that the charges have been proved. However, in the copy which was served on the writ petitioner, it appeared that the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer was in favour of the writ petitioner holding that the charges were not proved. Under such circumstances, this Court allowed the writ petition directing the respondent authorities to serve a copy of the enquiry report available on the records of the Department and further, directed to proceed in the enquiry from the stage of service of the enquiry report on the petitioner and while concluding the judgment under review, it was mentioned that the after service of the enquiry report on the petitioner it will be open for the petitioner to file a statutory appeal. 4] The review petition has been filed contending that Paragraph- 18 of the judgment and order dated 19.03.2025 passed in WP(C) No.2278/2021, under review, clearly reflects an error apparent on the face of the record, inasmuch as, despite there being a specific direction for service of the enquiry report on the petitioner and a further direction to the respondents to continue the proceedings from the stage of service of the enquiry report, the punishment imposed ought to have been set aside, which was not done. Under such circumstances, this review petition has been filed seeking review of the Page No.# 4/5 judgment and order dated 19.03.2025 passed in WP(C) No.2278/2021 to the extent that the imposition of the punishment was not set aside. 5] Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents have been heard. The judgment and order dated 19.03.2025 passed in WP(C) No.2278/2021 under the review has been carefully perused. 6] Upon due consideration of the submissions, it is seen that the Paragraph-18 of the judgment requires proper clarification. The conclusion arrived at by this Court in the judgment and order dated 19.03.2025 passed in WP(C) No.2278/2021 is that the copy of the enquiry report available in the records was not served to the writ petitioner and the respondents were directed to continue the proceedings from the stage of service of the enquiry report on the writ petitioner. If that be so, then the impugned order dated 19.09.2012 issued by the Supdt. of Police (Commn) HQ-II, Assam, Ulubari, Guwahati imposition the punishment of stoppage of increment of 2 (two) years with cumulative effect is required to be interfered with. It is accordingly interfered with. The impugned order dated 19.09.2012 issued by the Supdt. of Police (Commn) HQ-II, Assam, Ulubari, Guwahati imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment of 2 (two) years with cumulative effect is set aside. The matter will now proceed from the stage of service of the enquiry report on the petitioner/ review petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner may file necessary representation before the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter will pass necessary orders as per the prescription under Rule 9(A) of the Assam Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1964. If the Disciplinary Authority passes an adverse order to the petitioner, the remedy of statutory appeal will also be available to the writ petitioner. The review petition is, therefore, allowed to the extent as clarified above. Paragraph- 18 of the judgment and order dated 19.03.2025 passed in Page No.# 5/5 WP(C) No.2278/2021 is modified in this order passed today. As such, the findings of the Court in Paragraph 18 of the order dated 19.03.2025 passed in WP(C) No.2278/2021 that “after the enquiry report is served on the petitioner as directed, if the petitioner files the statutory appeal, the appellate authority may decide the matter on its merit. In the event that the appellate authority disagrees with the disciplinary authority, the order of punishment can be revoked and all consequential benefits may be granted to the petitioner” which is under review stands deleted. The order is modified to the extent that the Disciplinary Proceedings will commence from the stage of service of the enquiry report on the petitioner and as a consequence thereof, the impugned order dated 19.09.2012 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the punishment is set aside. The Disciplinary Authority will consider the representation, if filed by the petitioner and thereafter, pass appropriate orders. If the petitioner is still aggrieved, statutory appeal will be available to the petitioner to redress his grievances. The order passed in the review petition is to be read together along with the judgment and order dated 19.03.2025 passed in WP(C) No.2278/2021. 5] Accordingly, the review petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant