Page No.# 1/14 GAHC010034312023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/924/2023 DEBOJIT SAIKIA S/O LT. JAYKANTA SAIKIA R/O ASIDC QUARTER NO. 2 BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHAI 781021 DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 2:THE ASSAM SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ASIDC LTD. BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI 781021 3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ASIDC LTD. BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI 781021 4:THE GENERAL MANAGER ASIDC LTD. BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI 78102 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T DEURI, MR K BHATTA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, SC, ASIDC Page No.# 2/14 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER Date: 20/11/2025 Heard Mr. T Deuri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S Das, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Small Industries Development Corporation Limited (ASIDC) for the respondents no 2, 3 and 4 and Ms, S Baruah, learned Government Advocate, Assam, for the respondent no. 1. 2] The petitioner before this Court was employed as a Junior Engineer under the respondent no. 2. He was appointed as a Draftsman (Sub-Engineer-Civil-1) in the Assam Small Industries Development Corporation Limited (ASIDC Ltd.). The petitioner was regularised in his service with effect from 10-09-1996 and had been drawing a regular scale of pay since then. The petitioner continued in the same position till he was terminated from service. The petitioner was overlooked for promotion and his juniors were promoted, leading to lot of heartburning of the writ petitioner. Because of the stagnation that he had suffered and also the various ailments suffered by his wife, he was mentally not in the sound frame of mind. Being situated thus, on 03-11-2022, the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice and suspension order issued by the respondent no. 3 by the Notice under Ref:SIDC/HO/E/34/90/5546 dated 03-11- Page No.# 3/14 2022, thereby placing the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect. It is the case of the petitioner before this Court that petitioner was not given any copy of any written complaint lodged by any person regarding any misconduct or offence allegedly committed by the petitioner. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is that on 02-11-2022 at 5 pm, the petitioner, while in an inebriated state, had fiddled with the Biometric Attendance Machine by striking a few blows on the machine and used abusive language against one Shri Priya Kumar Singha, Junior Assistant-cum-Computer Operator, in gross violation of office discipline, decorum and conduct. 3] Under such circumstances, the respondent no.3 had placed the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect on 03-11-2022 and called for explanation/reply within 2 (two) days from the petitioner as to why disciplinary action as contemplated cannot be taken against the petitioner. In his explanation submitted on 05.11.2022 the petitioner stated that he had actually slipped and fell down and in that process, the Biometric Machine was struck while the petitioner was on his way to record his attendance. Since Shri Priya Kumar Singha had asked him to vacate his position, there was some exchange of words and for which the petitioner tendered his apologies. The petitioner also expressed his regret for what had happened and also tendering apology to Shri Priya Kumar Singha for any hurt caused to him. Page No.# 4/14 4] Pursuant to the receipt of reply filed by the petitioner, the Respondent no. 3 appointed the Respondent no. 4, General Manager, ASIDC Ltd., as the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the matter and submit an Enquiry Report in the departmental proceedings drawn up against the petitioner. One Md. Abdul Hamid, Assistant Manager, Construction and T.S. Division and Legal Cell was appointed as a Presenting Officer. The proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. The enquiry was conducted. The petitioner participated in the enquiry. However, no statement of allegation or notice was served on the writ petitioner and subsequently, the enquiry report was submitted and the impugned order dated 30.01.2023 was issued by the Respondent no. 3, whereby the penalty under Rule 7 (vi) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1964, was imposed and the petitioner was terminated from the services of the corporation with immediate effect. 5] Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the Rules of 1964 read with the manual of departmental proceedings, as also the law laid down by the Apex Court, the petitioner is entitled to be served with a copy of the charges framed along with the statement of allegations and the list of documents and witnesses sought to be relied upon by the Department. That apart, the petitioner is required to be permitted to respond to the charges framed by filing Page No.# 5/14 his written statements. Although the petitioner filed a reply but no written statement in respect of the charges could be filed by the petitioner as no specific charges were framed against the petitioner nor any charge-sheet was served. Although the petitioner was permitted to participate in the enquiry proceedings, the enquiry report was never served on the writ petitioner and as a consequence thereof he could not prefer any appeal before any Departmental Authority. 6] Under such circumstances, it is submitted that the manner and procedure adopted by the respondent Department in initiating and conducting the enquiry is not only contrary to the 1964 Rules but also violative of the basic principles of natural justice and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 7] In this context learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance of the judgments of the Apex Court rendered in Surath Chandra Chakravarty vs. the State of West Bengal AIR 1971 SC 752 and Anil Gilurker vs. Bilaspur-Raipur Kshetria Gramin Bank & Anr. reported AIR 2012 SC (Supp) 181. Pressing these judgments into service learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner is not an enquiry in the eye of law as the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1964 was not followed by the respondent authorities and no opportunity of effective hearing was granted to Page No.# 6/14 the writ petitioner. 8] Mr. S Das, learned counsel for the ASIDC Ltd., on the other hand, submits that the petitioner had replied to the show-cause notice issued and he was also permitted to participate in the proceedings. Therefore, it cannot be said that the enquiry was conducted in violation of the rules of natural justice. Referring to the reply submitted, he submits that the allegations made against the petitioner had been admitted by the petitioner in his reply. It is submitted that in the reply filed by the petitioner, he did not deny the occurrence of the incident. On the contrary, he tendered an apology seeking condonation of his conduct in respect of the said incident. Therefore, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner, as he has already submitted his reply and tendered his apology for the incident. He, however, clearly submits that the records do not reflect whether the enquiry report had been furnished to the petitioner. 9] Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Pleadings available on record have been carefully perused. 10] At the outset, it is necessary to refer to Rule 7 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. Rule 7 of the said Rules lays down the punishments prescribed. The punishment imposed on the petitioner is under Rule 7 (vi), which is removal from service, which shall not be disqualification for Page No.# 7/14 future ‘employment’. 11] Under Rule 9, the procedures for imposition of the penalties have been laid down in detail. Rule 9(2) specifically provides that the Disciplinary Authority shall frame definite charges on the basis of allegations on which the enquiry is proposed to be held. Such charges, together with the statement of allegations on which they are based, shall be communicated in writing to the Government servant, and he shall be required to submit, within such time, as may be specified by the Disciplinary Authority, a written statement of defence, and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person. Rule 9(3) prescribes that the Government servant shall, for the purpose of preparing his defence, be permitted to inspect and take extracts from such official records, as he may specify, provided such permission may be refused, if, for reasons to be recorded in writing, in the opinion of the Disciplinary Authority, such records are not relevant for the purpose or its against the public interest to allow him access thereto. Under Rule 9(4), it is provided that, upon receipt of the written statement of defence, or if no such statement is received within the specific time, the Department or the Disciplinary Authority may enquire into such charges as are not admitted, or if it considers it necessary so to do, appoint for the purpose a Board of Enquiry or an Enquiring Officer. Under Rule 9(5), a presenting officer, on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority, may be appointed. Page No.# 8/14 Rule 9(6) prescribes that the delinquent Government servant shall be entitled to cross-examine witnesses, examined in support of the charges, and to give evidence in person, and to adduce documentary and oral evidence in his defence. The person presenting the case in support of the charges also shall be entitled to cross-examine the Government servant and the witnesses examined in his defence. Finally, under Rule 9(7), a report at the conclusion of the enquiry shall be prepared by the Enquiring Authority and record its findings on each of the charges together with the reasons therefor. Under Rule 9(8), the record of enquiry shall include the following: (i) the charges framed against the Government servant and the statement of allegations furnsiehd to him under sub-rule(2); (ii) his written statement of defence, if any; (iii) the oral evidence taken in the course of the enquiry; (iv) the documentary evidence considered in the course of the enquiry; (v) the orders, if any, made by the Disciplinary Authority and the Inquiring Authority in regard to the enquiry; and (vi) a report setting out the findings on each charge and the Page No.# 9/14 reasons therefor. 12. Having noticed the requirement in the Rules of 1964, it is seen that the Rules of 1964 are ordinarily required to be applied in cases of Government servants. Although the writ petitioner in the present proceeding is not a Government servant but an employee of an instrumentality of the State, he is nevertheless entitled to the protection of law and to the observance of the principles of natural justice. The fact, however, remains that the Department had proceeded to conduct the enquiry under the provisions of the Rules of 1964. This presupposes that the respondent Department has adopted the Rules for the purposes of conducting an enquiry. The impugned termination order dated 30.01.2023 also reflects that punishment under Rule 7(vi) of the Rules, 1964 has been imposed. Therefore, the Department has consciously adopted the Rules of 1964 while conducting the departmental proceedings. If the Department has adopted such Rules, then, unless there exists any specific order issued by the competent authority exempting the application of any portion thereof, the Department is expected to adhere strictly to the rigours of the said Rules. 13] From the pleadings, it is seen that although notice dated 03-11-2022 terming it to be “show cause notice and suspension letter” was issued making Page No.# 10/14 allegations against the writ petitioner, the same was not followed up by issuance of a charge memo as is mandatorily required as prescribed under the Rules of 1964. As a consequence thereof, although the petitioner submitted his reply pursuant to the show cause notice, the petitioner was not confronted with specific and definite charges drawn up against him in which the Department had proposed to conduct an enquiry under the provisions of the Rules of 1964. In the absence of such definite and specific charges being framed against the petitioner, no specific replies would have been filed by the petitioner. The show cause notice and the suspension letter also does not include or also does not specifically mention any definite charges. The documents and witnesses to be relied upon by the Department during the process of enquiry had also not been forwarded to the petitioner as is required to be done under the provisions of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. 14] There is nothing in the pleadings to show that upon conclusion of the enquiry and prior to furnishing of the impugned termination letter dated 30-01- 2023, the enquiry report as mandated under Rule 9A of the Rules, 1964 was furnished on the writ petitioner. No prior notice as required under Rule 9A of the Rules, 1964 requiring the Department to call upon the petitioner as to why punishment as proposed in terms of the show cause notice issued should not be imposed in view of the findings in the enquiry report by the Enquiry Officer. Page No.# 11/14 These procedures which are prescribed have not been followed and no explanation has been furnished by the respondents as to why these procedures prescribed by law were not adhered to. 15] In Surath Chandra Chakravarty (supra), the Apex Court held that the grounds on which the action is proposed to be taken by the Department are required to be specifically informed to the delinquent officer and he has to be afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself. The grounds on which the proposed action is contemplated will have to be reduced to definite charge or charges which are to be communicated to the person charged. Unless such a person is informed in definite terms the charges framed and on which the Department proposes to proceed for enquiry, the Delinquent Officer will not be able to come up with effective defence in support of his case. These definite charges which are to be served on the Delinquent Officer must be supported by statement of allegations as well as a list of witnesses and documents. 16] Subsequently, the judgment was again referred in Anil Gilurker (supra) whereby the connection with the proceedings initiated against an employee of the Bank the Apex Court reiterated the position in Surath Chandra Chakravarty (supra) as also in Union of India & Others vs. Gyan Chand Chattar reported in (2009) 12 SCC 78. The Apex Court held that an enquiry has to be conducted Page No.# 12/14 against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and the principles of natural justice and therefore, the charges should be specific, definite and giving details of incident which formed the basis of charges. No enquiry can be conducted on the basis of vague charges. 17] Once a procedure is prescribed by a set of rules and which have been adopted by an authority, the procedure prescribed by these rules will have to be scrupulously followed. These rules have a binding effect and they bind the State and the citizens alike, once they are in force. In order for the law to regulate conduct, the State has to feel bound by its own laws and by willingly abiding by the law it exhibits an ideal situation for citizens to emulate. Such conduct of the State authorities to proceed in a manner with utter disregard to the Rules is strongly deprecated and is not expected of the State Authorities, who have themselves adopted the Rules of 1964 and the procedure prescribed under it. 18] Upon considering the materials before the Court and also position of law as discussed in above, this Court is of the view that the manner in which the respondents have proceeded to terminate the petitioner reflects the high handedness in which the authority proceeded to impose penalty on the petitioner without adhering to the procedures prescribed and with utter disregard to the basic rules of natural justice. While the Department has relied Page No.# 13/14 upon the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1964 for conducting the enquiry, however, the specific provisions prescribed have not been followed and no explanation thereto has been furnished by the respondent authorities. The further action of the respondents in not framing any definite charges and for not furnishing the enquiry report on the writ petitioner after conclusion of the enquiry, prior to imposition of the impugned order of termination dated 30.01.2023 also is contrary to the provisions of the law. The actions of the respondents therefore need to be interfered with as being contrary to law. Accordingly, the impugned order of termination dated 30.01.2023 is therefore set aside and quashed. 19] The petitioner will be reinstated in service if he has not already crossed his age of superannuation. In the event the petitioner has crossed his age of superannuation, then all service and financial benefits that the petitioner is entitled to shall be granted to the petitioner without any further delay. Considering the fact that from a perusal of the materials before the Court it is apparent that the Department has arbitrarily proceeded to terminate the petitioner without adhering to the prescribed norms and which procedure is also opposed to the Rules of Natural Justice, the petitioner's period under suspension shall be treated to period in service and all service and financial benefits entitled to the petitioner shall be released as expeditiously as possible preferably within Page No.# 14/14 a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 20] With the above observations and directions, the Writ petition accordingly stands allowed and disposed of. No order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant