Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010131772023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4150/2023 SUKMOL BORO S/O LATE BHADRESWAR BORO, R/O VILL-KACHARIGAON, P.O.-ULUBARI, DIST-SONITPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE ASSAM AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR, JORHAT-13 2:HONORARY DIRECTOR CCS ASSAM AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY JORHAT-13 3:THE DIRECTOR CCS ASSAM AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY JORHAT-13 4:DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH (AGRI) AND CHAIRMAN ENQUIRY COMMITTEE ASSAM AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY JORHAT-1 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR F Z MAZUMDER, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, AAU, Page No.# 2/10 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 14.10.2025 Heard Mr. F.Z. Mazumder, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. I. Borthakur, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Agricultural University. 2. The petitioner who was serving as a Field man in the Cost Cultivation Scheme under the Assam Agriculture University was terminated from service by order dated 27.08.2015. The order of termination was preceded by an inquiry proceeding initiated against the petitioner under the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964. In the said inquiry, upon charges being framed and replies thereto being filed by the petitioner, at the time of hearing before the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner is stated to have admitted the charges in his statement and thereafter, the inquiry was concluded and the order of termination was issued. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had approached the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court earlier by filing WP(C) No.2232/2016, wherein the disciplinary proceedings and the order of termination was challenged. The petitioner submitted before the Court that he was forced to sign on a blank paper upon being intimated that if he puts his signature, all charges against him will be dropped and believing such assurances coming from the Departmental Officers, the petitioner had signed on a blank paper. Subsequently, the Departmental Officers had recorded in the said blank paper containing the signature of the writ petitioner that he admits to all the charges. A copy of this purported admission dated 16.07.2015 is also enclosed to the writ petition as Annexure 6. Upon due consideration of the matters in its entirety the Co- ordinate Bench declined to interfere with the inquiry conducted and the order Page No.# 3/10 passed by the Disciplinary Authority but it interfered with the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and thereafter remanded the matter for a fresh decision. 3. The Co-ordinate Bench by the said order dated 12.12.2022 passed in WP(C) No.2232/2016 set aside the order dated 12.02.2016 passed by the Appellate Authority and remanded the matter to the said Appellate Authority for a fresh decision in the appeal, taking into account the various grounds taken therein and thereafter pass a speaking order. 4. Pursuant to the said orders passed, the Appellate Authority by order dated 02.02.2023 passed a speaking order, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was rejected. Being aggrieved the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Mr. F. Z. Mazumder, the learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in Kuldeep Singh Vs. The Commissioner of Police and Others reported in (1999) AIR(SC) 677 and Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in (1991) AIR(SC) 385, submits that an inquiry proceeding initiated cannot be concluded confirming the charges even if the same is on the basis of an admission. He submits that the petitioner did not admit to the contents of the communication which the department claims to have been addressed to by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner however, submits that the petitioner admits only to the signature made in the same document but not to the contents. He reiterates his submission that during the time of hearing before the Departmental Inquiry the petitioner was impressed upon by the respondent authorities to put his signature on the blank paper whereupon all charges will be dropped. Believing such offer made by the Departmental Authorities the petitioner had put his signature on the blank paper. However, to his dismay he subsequently found Page No.# 4/10 that the same was treated to be an admission on the part of the petitioner with his signature. He therefore, submits that the contents of the said communication had never been written by the petitioner although he admits that he had put his signature on a blank paper upon the dictates of the department authorities. 6. Mr. I. Borthakur, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Agricultural University on the other hand disputes the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that in terms of the earlier order the matter was examined and a speaking order was issued by the Vice-Chancellor, Assam Agriculture University, Jorhat by order dated 02.02.2023. He submits that once the petitioner has admitted to the charges there was no necessity for continuance of the Departmental Inquiry. He therefore submits that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same should be dismissed. 7. The submissions of the learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the pleadings available on record have been carefully perused. 8. The core issue presented before this Court by the present writ petition is the legality and validity of the order passed by the Appellate Authority namely the Vice-Chancellor of the Assam Agricultural University by the order dated 02.02.2023. Although the writ petitioner has assailed the departmental proceedings and the conclusions thereof against him, this Court is not inclined to examine the same as these are the issues which were already subject matter before the Co-ordinate Bench in the earlier writ petition filed by the writ petitioner being WP(C) No. 2232/2016, which came to be disposed of by order dated 12.12.2022. In the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench the matter was examined in detail including the correctness of the inquiry which was undertaken. The Co-ordinate Bench however, declined to interfere Page No.# 5/10 with the inquiry proceedings but considered that the Appellate Authority was duly reposed with the powers for interfering with any order passed by the Disciplinary Authority in the event any shortcomings or defects were noticed by the Appellate Authority. Under such circumstances the Co-ordinate Bench interfered with only the order passed by the Appellate Authority and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision. The Co-ordinate Bench also observed that since the issues raised before the Court involved the questions of facts, the Appellate Authority would be the appropriate authority to examine the same and pass a speaking order thereon. This order was not appealed against by either of the parties. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 02.02.2023 the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and which is assailed in the present proceedings. 9. For convenience, the impugned speaking order passed by the Appellate Authority is extracted below: “Speaking Order Subject: Speaking order in pursuance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Guwahati, Assam. Reference: Writ petition vide No. (C) 2232/2016 filed by Mr. Sukmol Boro v/s Assam Agricultural University & 3 others before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Guwahati (Disposed) WHEREAS the applicant, Mr. Sukmol Boro had filed WP (C) No. 2232/2016 before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Guwahati which disposed off the same vide its order dated 12-12-2022 directing the respondent no. 1 and more particularly, the Vice Chancellor, Assam Agricultural University to decide afresh the earlier appeal made by the petitioner and pass a reasoned order thereon. Issues raised by the appellant/petitioner, Mr. Sukmol Boro: Page No.# 6/10 i. That, no enquiry was conducted against him, neither any witnesses were examined nor he was allowed to cross examine any witness. ii. That, the Departmental Proceedings were not conducted as per law. iii. That, he was not allowed any defence assistance in the Disciplinary Proceedings. iv. That, he never admitted any charges brought against him, rather it was written by the Enquiry Committee on the blank paper at his back. v. That, he was assured that all the charges levelled against him would be dropped altogether. WHEREAS the appellant had also alleged that his appeal made to the Vice Chancellor, AAU was turned down without any basis as communicated by the Registrar's letter no. AAU/2.6(7)-RG/2015-16/11,607/dated 12/02/2016. AND WHEREAS as per the directives of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Assam the petitioner's appeal was considered afresh by the Vice Chancellor, Assam Agricultural University and the Speaking order is passed as follows: Issue no. i: There is no point of denying the fact that the enquiry was not conducted at all as stated by the petitioner. The office procedures as evident from the relevant files and the documents submitted by the Enquiry Committee amply demonstrate that formal enquiry was made to examine the case of Mr. Boro by following the principle of natural justice and as such, enough opportunity was given to him to prove his case. Subsequently, all the charges brought against him were substantially established. Therefore, the allegation is absolutely false, concocted and misleading one. Rather, the petitioner raised these issues just to harness legal benefits out of it. Appearing before the Enquiry Committee in one hand and simultaneously denying of the fact that there was no enquiry against him clearly indicate emptiness of his appeal. Issue no, ii: The enquiry was undertaken by an Enquiry Committee duly constituted with the approval of the competent authority. The members of the said committee were in the rank of Professors Page No.# 7/10 and the relevant procedures as prescribed in the Assam Disciplinary (Services and Appeal) Rules, 1964 were followed during the enquiry process. Issue no.iii: Going by the records, every opportunity was given to Mr. Boro to defend himself. He had the full liberty to ask for defence assistance at that time, which he did not ask for. Issue no. iv: The document was signed by the petitioner himself in presence of the Enquiry Officer and other witnesses. Therefore, this issue cannot be accepted and is strongly denied. Issue no. v: No such assurance was given to him that the charges brought against him would be dropped. Further, the appeal made by the petitioner was turned down by the Hon'ble Vice Chancellor of AAU, Jorhat based on the available records and documents. The Enquiry Committee also brought out the factual details of service record in respect of the appellant/petitioner which was marked by gross negligence of duties, unauthorized absence for a prolonged period, breach of office decorum, insubordination and blatant failure in submitting the records/data which ultimately affected the official activities of the Scheme very badly. Neither the petitioner asked for any leave during the period on medical ground nor he was ready enough to respond to the show-cause notices served upon him. Only after close scrutiny of the case and verification of the documents submitted by the office and the Enquiry Committee, the competent authority of the university was constrained to award the penalty upon the petitioner as per the Section 7.3.3.2 (VI) of the Assam Service Manual. Date:02/02/2023 Place: Jorhat, Assam Vice Chancellor Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat, Assam Copy for information to: Page No.# 8/10 1. The Registrar, Hon’ble High Court of Gauhati, Guwahati 2. The Registrar, Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat 3. The Hony. Director, Cost of Cultivation Scheme, Assam Centre, AAU, Jorhat 4. Mr. Sukmol Boro, Former Field Man (Removed from services), CCS Assam Centre 5. Guard File Vice Chancellor Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat, Assam” 10. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the parties before this Court it is seen that the question raised by the petitioner is whether the claim of the petitioner that he did not admit to the charges by way of the communication dated 16.07.2015 is indeed a correct statement. Referring to the same communication dated 16.07.2015, which is available as Annexure 6 with the writ petition, it is seen that this communication was signed in the presence of the Presenting Officer as well as other witnesses. However, it is the claim of the writ petitioner that he did not admit to the charges as have been sought to be levelled against him. The petitioner only admits to putting his signature on a blank paper. No contemporaneous material has been placed before this Court by the writ petitioner as well as by the respondents to support their contentions. From the appeal filed before the Appellate Authority, which is also enclosed to the writ petition, it is seen that there is a specific ground urged by the writ petitioner that he did not admit to the charges but he was asked to sign on a blank paper and he was assured that all the charges levelled against him would be dropped and he would also get his salary and other dues but to his surprise, the authority concerned have themselves written on a blank paper that he had admitted the charges brought against him, which is totally false. It is not in Page No.# 9/10 dispute, that although the petitioner has made allegations against the respondent departmental authorities of having written on the blank paper containing his signature that he had admitted to all the charges, no FIR or complaint was lodged by the writ petitioner. There is no explanation as to why the writ petitioner did not raise such complaints and objections before the appropriate forum, including departmental forum, when the petitioner was aware that the departmental authorities had written in the said communication, to the effect that the petitioner had admitted to all the charges, which the petitioner disputes. 11. On the other hand, the Appellate Authority on the basis of the grounds urged by the petitioner in it’s appeal also framed Issue No. 4 to the effect that the petitioner never admitted to any of the charges brought against him and instead of that the statement in question was written by the Inquiry Committee on a blank sheet placed behind the petitioner. However, this issue was ultimately decided against the petitioner, solely on the ground that the document bore his signature, allegedly affixed in the presence of the Inquiry Officer and other witnesses, thereby disregarding the petitioner's contention regarding the involuntary nature and manner of recording the said statement. There is no reference to any material by the Appellate Authority as to how the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the ground raised by the writ petitioner has been found to be incorrect. The Appellate Authority was duty bound in law, pursuant to the directions issued by the Co-ordinate Bench to examine the matter in this aspect and pass a speaking order. The findings and the conclusions of the Appellate Authority on this ground appears to have been made without conducting a proper inquiry as to the attending facts and circumstances. The document on which the petitioner is alleged to have Page No.# 10/10 been made his admission was shown to have been signed in the presence of some witnesses. The speaking order passed by the Appellate Authority does not reveal whether these witnesses were called upon and examined by the Appellate Authority while deciding this question of the admission of the charges by the writ petitioner. 12. Under such circumstances, this Court considers it appropriate to remand the matter back to the Appellate Authority to re-decide specifically on the question of the admission stated to have been made by the writ petitioner which is reflected in issue No.iv. The Appellate Authority will cause a proper inquiry if need be and thereupon pass a speaking order in respect of the said issue No.iv. 13. Let this speaking order be passed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the certificate copy of this order. The findings of the Appellate Authority in respect of the other grounds are not interfered with. Needless to say, the opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner should also be granted when the Appellate Authority re-decides the matter as directed 14. This writ petition is disposed of and allowed in part to the extent indicated above. 15. Interim order, if any stands merged. 16. The records placed before the Court are returned to the learned Standing Counsel, AAU. JUDGE Comparing Assistant