Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010108942025 2025:GAU-AS:6603-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2789/2025 INALO ZHIMOMI SON OF SH EDWARD ZHIMOMI, RESIDENT OF DIPHUPAR B VILLAGE, CHUMOUKEDIMA, NAGALAND-797103 VERSUS 1: THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 5 ORS REPRESENT BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND, KOHIMA, NAGALAND- 797001. 2:THE DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND JUSTICE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND KOHIMA NAGALAND - 797001 3:THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL GAUHATI ASSAM -781001. 4:THE REGISTRAR (VIGILANCE) GAUHATI HIGH COURT GAUHATI ASSAM- 781001 5:THE REGISTRAR GAUHATI HIGH COURT (KOHIMA BENCH) KOHIMA NAGALAND - 797001. 6:SH NEIKO AKAMI, INQUIRY OFFICER, KOHIMA NAGALAND - 79700 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Borgohain, Advocate. Mr. B. Chakma, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mrs. T. Khro, Additional Advocate General, Nagaland for respondent Nos.1 & 2. : Mr. T.J. Mahanta, Sr. Advocate/Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court, assisted by Ms. P. Sarma, Advocate for respondent Nos.3, 4 & 5. Page No.# 2/4 – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE 26-05-2025 (Vijay Bishnoi, CJ) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 07.04.2025 (Annexure-P1 to the writ petition) issued by the Registrar (Vigilance) of the Gauhati High Court appointing the respondent No.6 as the Inquiry Officer in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner as well as the communication dated 28.04.2025 (Annexure-P2 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No.6, whereby the petitioner was informed to be present before him on 17.05.2025 in connection with the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was the Member of the Nagaland Judicial Services. While the petitioner was working as District & Sessions Judge, Dimapur, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 04.12.2024 on initiation of a disciplinary proceedings against him. On 30.01.2025, a show cause notice along with the charge-sheet and the statement of allegations had been issued to the petitioner, which was duly served upon him and pursuant to that the petitioner has also filed his reply on 12.03.2025. Meanwhile, the Gauhati High Court, exercising its powers under sub-rule (2) of Rule 20 of the Nagaland Judicial Service Rules, 2006 (hereinafter to be referred as the “2006 Rules”), has compulsorily retired the petitioner from services on 31.03.2025, against which the petitioner has preferred a writ petition, being WP(C) No.2278/2025, which is pending consideration before this Court. However, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 07.04.2025 issued by the Registrar (Vigilance), whereby the respondent No.6 was appointed as the Page No.# 3/4 Inquiry Officer and has also assailed the communication dated 28.04.2025 issued by the respondent No.6 to the petitioner informing him to remain present before him in the disciplinary proceedings on 17.05.2025 on the ground that once the petitioner is compulsorily retired from the services, the disciplinary proceedings against him cannot be initiated or continued because there is no such provision under the Nagaland Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1967 or under the 2006 Rules. Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel appearing for the Gauhati High Court has opposed the writ petition on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were initiated prior to his retirement and the same can be continued as per the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021, which has been adopted by the State of Nagaland. The facts which are not in dispute are that a show cause notice along with the charge-sheet and the Memorandum of Charges were served upon the petitioner on 30.01.2025 and the petitioner had also replied to the said show cause notice on 13.03.2025. Later on, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from services by the Gauhati High Court on 31.03.2025 as per Rule 20(2) of the 2006 Rules. The contention of Mr. S. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner cannot be initiated once he is retired from services is without any merit. It is settled that the disciplinary proceedings can be said to have commenced with the issuance of charge-sheet [see Union of India & Ors. -Vs- K.V. Janakiraman & Ors. :: (1991) 4 SCC 109]. As observed, the charge-sheet and the Memorandum of Charges have already been issued and served upon the petitioner, it is clear that the disciplinary proceedings have already been initiated against the petitioner prior Page No.# 4/4 to his retirement. So far as the question of continuance of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner after his retirement is concerned, it is to be noticed that the State of Nagaland has not framed any Pension Rules and they have adopted the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021. As per Rule 8(2)(a) of the said Rules, a departmental proceedings if instituted while the Government servant was in service before his retirement be deemed to be proceedings under the Disciplinary Rules. Explanation (1)(a) of Rule 8 of the said Rules provides that the departmental proceedings against an employee shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the Government servant. Hence, we do not find any merit in this writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant