Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010055722025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/46/2025 1.THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY THE LEGAL REMEMBRANCER CUM COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 2: THE LEGAL REMEMBRANCER CUM COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI PIN-781006 VERSUS ABDUL KUDDUS SON OF LATE PESKAR ALI RESIDENCE OF VILLAGE DOLOITOLA P.O- SONIADI P.S- HAJO DISTRICT- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781102. For the Appellant(s) : Mr. D. Mazumdar, Additional Advocate General, Assam assisted by Ms. D. Devi, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. T. Deuri, Advocate. – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 19.11.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Additional Page No.# 2/8 Advocate General, Assam for the appellants/State and Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. T. Deuri, learned Advocate for the sole respondent. 2. The State has preferred the instant appeal against the judgment and order dated 12.09.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.4258/2023, whereby the case of the respondent has been remanded to the Disciplinary Authority for a re-look at the punishment awarded to him of compulsory retirement for the reason of it being excessive and disproportionate to the guilt alleged and proved. 3 The respondent, at the relevant time, worked as a Junior Administrative Assistant (JAA) in the Office of the Senior Government Advocate, Assam, Gauhati High Court, Guwahati. The charge against him was that he did not produce the case- diaries in the bail applications. This was not an isolated instance of negligence, but the case- diaries in about 4(four) cases were not tagged with the bail applications, which was one of the duties of the respondent. 4. The respondent, therefore, was charged of gross misconduct, negligence of duty and breach of trust and thereby bringing disrepute to the institution, i.e. the Office of the Senior Government Advocate, Assam and violation of Rule 3(1) of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. 5. In the domestic proceeding, 5(five) witnesses were examined on behalf of the Department. In defense, the respondent got himself Page No.# 3/8 examined and one Kamal Kumar Nath, his contemporary in the same establishment. 6. The charges against the respondent were said to have been proved. The respondent was saddled with the punishment of compulsory retirement and the appeal against such order was also dismissed. 7. It was argued on behalf of the respondent before the Writ Court that though the case-diaries in some of the bail applications could not be attached but it was not with any mala fide intent. In one of the cases, where the case-diary was not supplied, the cover of the file contained an inscription that the application had already been disposed off. For this reason, that particular file was kept in the disposed section. The respondent was also thereafter transferred from the criminal section and thus, stood divested of the responsibility of tagging the case- diaries to the bail applications/petitions. That apart, it was argued on his behalf that he was only one of the Junior Assistants in the establishment and therefore, the entire blame could not have been assisted on him. 8. Be that as it may, the learned Single Judge, on having gone through the records, observed as follows: “[41.] From the appreciation of the entire evidence led by the parties including the petitioner himself, as set out in the preceding paragraphs, it can be seen that the petitioner was assigned with the work of receiving the Case Diaries and keeping them in safe custody till they were required to be produced before the Court as and when the Bail Applications were listed by placing the Case Diary in the Bail Application. Therefore, in respect of the assignment given to the petitioner, there is no dispute with regard to his responsibility. The petitioner Page No.# 4/8 himself had admitted that on few occasions, he could not send the Case Diaries and for that, he has offered no explanation. It therefore only appears that there is some degree of negligence on the part of the petition in carrying out his duties and responsibilities. For the action/inaction of the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority has imposed upon him a major penalty of compulsory retirement which was again confirmed against the appeal filed by the petitioner. It is a settled principle of law that the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts and judicial review should not be exercised to review the decisions as an appeal but to only examine the decision making process. [42.] Having arrived to an opinion that there was some degree of negligence on the part of the petitioner, the question would be as to whether the penalty of compulsory retirement which is a major penalty imposed upon him is commensurate to his actions/inactions. The same under the facts and circumstances and in the considered view of this Court appears to be excessive. By applying the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan & Ors. (supra), this Court deems it fit to remand the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed upon the petitioner and for imposition of a lesser penalty other than compulsory retirement. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 03.04.2021 and 04.07.2023 are hereby set aside and the matter remanded back to Disciplinary Authority to pass necessary orders as observed herein above within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. In passing the order as directed, the Disciplinary Authority shall also pass appropriate orders in respect of the entitlement of the petitioner on his reinstatement.” 9. From a reading of the afore-noted two concluding paragraphs of the impugned judgment, it clearly appears that the punishment of compulsory retirement for a venial offence of not tagging the case-diaries in 4(four) bail applications was found to be totally Page No.# 5/8 disproportionate and, therefore, not sustainable in the eyes of law. 10. There is a clear indication in the afore-noted two paragraphs that the sentence of compulsory retirement for a charge of this nature was shocking to the Judicial conscience specially in the absence of any evidence to suggest that the case- diaries were not supplied for any mala fide intention; or for the purposes of helping somebody; or for deflecting the course of justice in any manner whatsoever. In our estimation, this is nothing but negligence, which did not demand the punishment of compulsory retirement from service. 11. Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Additional Advocate General for the State/appellants has submitted that the charge is not venial, but very serious and it had the potential of deflecting the course of justice. 12. It has been argued that seen in that background, the punishment of compulsory retirement cannot be said to be shocking to judicial conscience. In that case, the remand of the case to the Disciplinary Authority for having a re-look at the sentence was nothing else but substitution of the view of the Disciplinary Authority with that of the learned Single Judge, which is not permissible. 13. On the contrary, Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent defends the judgment impugned by reiterating that from the records, no guilty intention could be deciphered. 14. We have examined the records of the case. 15. The remand by the learned Single Judge is only for a re-look at Page No.# 6/8 the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and to consider whether it was reasonable for such quantum of punishment to have been imposed on the respondent. 16. The learned Single Judge, applying the principle laid down by Supreme Court in Ranjit Thakur -Vs- Union of India :: (1987) 4 SCC 611, found that the facts of the case warranted lesser penalty. However, instead of reducing it himself, he remitted the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for the needful, which is permissible under the law. 17. In B.C. Chaturvedi -Vs- Union of India & Ors. :: (1995) 6 SCC 749, it has been categorically held that the law on the subject has concretized that the Disciplinary Authority is invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the High Court, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the Disciplinary Authority/Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation; it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. 18. In Ranjit Thakur (supra), it has been clarified that the question of the choice and quantum of punishment is within the jurisdiction and the discretion of the Disciplinary Authority. But the Page No.# 7/8 sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It ought not to be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence so as to shock the conscience, as that itself would be a conclusive proof of bias. [Also refer to Union of India & Anr. -Vs- G. Ganayutham :: (1997) 7 SCC 463; Om Kumar & Ors. –Vs- Union of India :: (2001) 2 SCC 386]. 19. We are of the considered view that the punishment imposed upon the respondent was excessive and deserved interference. 20. In this case, the learned Single Judge has rightly remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority. 21. We find no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge. 22. While saying so, we are also reminded of the caution sounded in Tractor & Farm Equipment Limited –Vs- Secretary to Government of Assam, Department of Agriculture & Ors. :: (2004) 2 GLR 56 that a writ appeal is an appeal in principle but unlike a criminal appeal, where the whole evidence on record is examined afresh by the Appellate Court, in Writ appeals, what is examined is the legality and validity of the judgment and the order of the Single Judge. Such judgment could be set aside or interfered with only if there is a patent error on the face of the record or the judgment is against the established or settled principles of law. If two views are possible and a view, which is reasonable and logical, has been adopted by a learned Single Judge, the other view, howsoever appealing, ought not to weigh with the Page No.# 8/8 Division Bench in setting aside the judgment of the Single Judge. 23. For the reasons referred to above, we are inclined to dismiss this appeal, and we order accordingly. 24. The writ appeal is dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant