Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010110202025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2783/2025 GANAPATI ROY S/O LT KANTESWAR ROY R/O VILL AMBARI PO AMBARI PS DHUPDHARA DISTRICT GOALPARA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPTT JANATA BHAWAN DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 3:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 4:THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY GOVT OF ASSAM FINANCE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT JANATA BHAWAN DISPUR GUWAHATI 78100 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. L DAS, MR A CHAKRABORTY,MR. M P SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. D NATH, SR, GA, ASSAM,SC, FINANCE AND TAXATION Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 08.05.2026 Heard Mr. A Chakraborty, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. D Nath, Learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for all the respondents. 2. The petitioner in the present petition as assailed the report of the One Man Enquiry Commission, constituted for enquiring into the conduct of examinations by the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) and also the affairs of the said Commission. The petitioner has also assailed a show- cause notice dated 30.11.2023, issued by the disciplinary authority, basing on the report of the One Man Enquiry Commission. The petitioner has further raised a grievance that immediately after issuance of the show cause notice dated 30.11.2023, without affording to him an opportunity to submit his written statement, the authorities had appointed, vide an order dated 01.12.2023, an Enquiry Officer as well as a Presenting Officer, in the matter, which is contended to reveal that the matter has already been pre- judged. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Parties have submitted that the issues arising in the present writ petition, is covered by the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Aoicharjya Jibon Baruah Page No.# 3/6 Vs. State of Assam & Ors. judgment and order dated 01.04.2026 in WP(C) No. 1380/2025. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Parties that the directions passed in the said judgment would also squarely apply to the present writ petition and Mr. D Nath has submitted that the respondent authorities, even in the case of the petitioner, herein, shall act in compliance with the directions passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Aoicharjya Jibon Baruah (Supra). 4. This Court has perused the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Aoicharjya Jibon Baruah (Supra) and finds that the conclusions reached, therein, are squarely applicable to the facts arising in the present proceeding. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the said decision had issued the following directions : “(i) The Commission had violated the rights of the Petitioners under Section 8B and Section 8C of the Act of 1952 while making the inquiries in respect to the Combined Competitive Examination, 2013 and Combined Competitive Examination, 2014 and thus the Report, 2013 and Report, 2014 are in violation to the mandatory provisions of Section 8B and Section 8C of the Act of 1952. (ii) The Report, 2013 and Report, 2014 cannot be used against the Petitioners to initiate any disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioners or any prosecution against the Petitioners. All findings observations and/or recommendations so made by the Commission in the Report, 2013 and Report, 2014 touching upon the conduct and reputation of the Petitioners prejudicially cannot be used against the Petitioners in any Forum and are rendered nonest as it violates Section 8B and Section 8C of the Act of 1952. (iii) The Report, 2013 and Report, 2014, subject to the observations made in Clause (ii) hereinabove, are not set aside and quashed. The Report, 2013 and Report, 2014 contains various fact-finding details touching on matters of public importance and such findings, observations and recommendations may aid the Government of Assam to retrospect as well as introspect and to take any policy decision for the future. (iv) The Respondent State/Disciplinary Authority would be at liberty to Page No.# 4/6 proceed with the Disciplinary Proceedings initiated against the Petitioners on the basis of the Show Cause Notices and Statements of the Allegations served upon the Petitioners. However, the Respondent State/Disciplinary Authority shall proceed with the Disciplinary proceedings without relying and/or referring to any observation, finding and/or recommendations made by the Commission which touches upon the conduct and reputation of the Petitioners in the Report, 2013 and Report, 2014, as the case may be. (v) Accordingly, the second paragraph of the Show Cause Notices as well as the second paragraph of the Statements of the Allegations issued against each Petitioner stand stricken off. The Extracts of the Report, 2013 or the Report, 2014 which were furnished as list of Documents to the Petitioners cannot be relied and/or referred to by the Respondent State/Disciplinary Authority. (vi) In the circumstance, the Disciplinary Authority/Respondent State wishes to include additional documents and/or provide the list of witnesses, the Petitioners having already submitted their Statement of Defence have to be provided with an opportunity to file additional Statement of Defence along with documents, if so advised. The Petitioners would be at liberty to raise such further or other defences as permissible under law in their additional Statement of Defence. (vii) The liberty so granted in Clause (vi) hereinabove to the Disciplinary Authority/Respondent State is limited to be exercised within 45 (forty-five) days from the date of the present judgment. It is observed that if the Disciplinary Authorities fail to provide the additional documents and/or list of witnesses to the Petitioners within the time stipulated hereinabove, the Disciplinary proceedings shall proceed in accordance with law on the basis of the observations made in Clauses (iv) and (v) hereinabove. For the period of 45 (forty-five) days from the present judgment, the Disciplinary Proceedings shall therefore stalled thereby enabling the Respondent State/Disciplinary Authority to provide the additional documents and/or provide the list of witnesses. remain (viii) This Court for the sake of clarity observes that as the Disciplinary Proceedings against the Petitioners are yet to be decided on merits, the above directions issued shall not preclude the Disciplinary Authorities/Respondent State to drop the present impugned Disciplinary Proceedings initiated against the Petitioners and initiate fresh Disciplinary Proceedings, if so advised. It is observed that in the circumstances fresh Disciplinary Proceedings are initiated, the Disciplinary Authority/Respondent State cannot refer and/or rely upon the observations, findings and recommendations made by the Commission against the Petitioners in the Report, 2013 and Report, 2014. [see Devender Pratap Narain Rai Sharma Vs State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1961 SCC Online SC 90] (ix) The liberty granted to the Respondent State/Disciplinary Authority to drop the impugned Disciplinary Proceedings and initiate fresh Disciplinary Proceedings shall have to be exercised within 45 (forty- Page No.# 5/6 five) days from the date of the instant judgment. Failure to do so, the Respondent State/Disciplinary Authority shall have to proceed with the impugned Disciplinary Proceedings in the manner directed hereinabove. (x) The Notifications whereby the Petitioners have been suspended are not interfered with. However, this Court directs that the Respondent Authorities shall carry out periodical reviews as to whether the continuation of the suspension of the Petitioners are necessary in public interest. (xi) It has been brought to the attention of this Court that during the pendency of the writ petitions there were no reviews conducted by the Competent Authority. This Court directs the Respondent Authorities to carry out review of all the Notifications notifying the suspension of the Petitioners within 45 (forty-five) days from the date of the present judgment as to whether the continuation of the Petitioners suspension are necessary in public interest. Failure to do so, would result in the Notifications suspending the Petitioners invalid and the Petitioners be accordingly reinstated in non-sensitive posts keeping in mind the observations of the Supreme Court at Paragraph No. 21 of the Judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra). (xii) The Petitioners, having given up the plea as regards the legality and validity of the parallel continuation of the departmental proceedings pending the criminal proceedings, it is observed that the Petitioners are debarred from raising such contention in future. (xiii) This Court hopes and expects that the Disciplinary proceedings so initiated against the Petitioners are brought to a close at the earliest taking into account that delay in disposal of the Disciplinary proceedings not only prejudicially affects the rights of both the Petitioners and the Respondents, but also leads to a state of uncertainty in the lives of the Petitioners.” 5. The present writ petition is disposed of by applying the directions as extracted hereinabove, passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Aoicharjya Jibon Baruah and the respondents authorities are directed to apply the same to the case of the petitioner and proceed against him, in the disciplinary proceedings, so instituted, accordingly. 6. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Page No.# 6/6 JUDGE Comparing Assistant