Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010030292025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/772/2025 SYED INTERUDDIN AHMED S/O- LATE BHOYNUR ALI, RESIDENT OF GUYA , NEAR BURA MASZID, P.O-SONESWAR, P.S-KAMALPUR, DIST-KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN-781382 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, ASSAM 2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 3:THE DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS AND SURVEY ASSAM RUPNAGAR GUWAHATI-32 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY KAMRUP (M) LICHUBAGAN Page No.# 2/9 HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-36 5:SMT JHARNAJYOTI PATGIRI ACS ADC AND ENQUIRY OFFICER ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (M) LICHUBAGAN HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-36 6:SRI BISWAJIT SAIKIA ACS ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ENQUIRY OFFICER KAMRUP METROPOLITAN DISTRICT LICHUBAGAN HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-3 – B E F O R E – HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA Advocate for the petitioners : Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. T Deuri, Advocate Advocate for the respondents : Mr. T.C Chutia, Addl. Sr. Government Advocate Ms. J Sharma, Advocate Mr. J. Handique, Standing Counsel, Revenue · Date on which Judgment was reserved : NA · Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 12.05.2026 · Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative Part of the Judgment : No · Whether the full Judgment has been Pronounced : Yes JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL) Heard Mr. K.N Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. T. Deuri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T.C Chutia, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate assisted by Ms. J Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent and Mr. J. Handique, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue. Page No.# 3/9 2. The petitioner before the Court was serving as Lot Mandal, subsequently re- designated Land Record Assistant (LRA), under the Revenue Department. In connection with an allegation that the petitioner demanded and received a bribe during his official duties, a departmental proceeding was initiated. An FIR was lodged which had culminated into a criminal proceeding and departmental proceeding being DP No. 11 of 2018 was also initiated against the writ petitioner. A show cause notice dated 10.08.2021 was served on the petitioner levelling allegations against the petitioner that he demanded and received a bribe and giving an opportunity to the delinquent employee to submit his reply to the show cause notice issue. 3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the show cause notice did not contain the list of witnesses and/or the list of documents. Nevertheless, the petitioner submitted his reply and also requested for furnishing all the relevant documents. It is the submission on behalf of the petitioner that without furnishing these documents, the enquiry officer was appointed and the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry and submitted the enquiry report dated 31.08.2023 holding the petitioner guilty on the ground of misconduct which caused embarrassment to the government and demeans the public service. The enquiry officer went to the extent of penalizing the delinquent officer with a penalty of compulsory retirement. The petitioner thereafter was served with a copy of the enquiry report and in response, he submitted a reply to the disciplinary authority, namely the Additional District Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro) District disputing the conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer appointed. In the said reply, he also raised the issue of non-furnishing of the relevant documents and/or being denied the opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses. In response to this reply, the petitioner was furnished documents in connection with DP No. 11/2018 only on 08.07.2024. The petitioner again submitted a representation before the disciplinary authority requesting to reject the enquiry report as the same was conducted and the conclusions were arrived at in violation of the procedures mandated. Page No.# 4/9 4. It is submitted that thereafter the disciplinary authority appointed another enquiry officer purportedly for completion of the departmental proceeding as the earlier enquiry officer stood transferred. The subsequent enquiry officer thereafter again submitted another enquiry report dated 03.10.2024 holding both the charges made against the petitioner to have been proved and it was held that the charges framed against the delinquent official is re-confirmed and an action is to be initiated accordingly. The learned Senior Counsel in his submission has made reference to the said enquiry report dated 03.10.2024, wherein the second enquiry officer had also relied upon the conclusions arrived at by the earlier enquiry officer and on which ground itself the enquiry report submitted by the second enquiry officer ought to be rejected. Subsequent to the second enquiry report submitted, the disciplinary authority by the impugned Order dated 10.01.2025 imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. Being aggrieved, the present petitioner is before this court. The further contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that this subsequent enquiry is a de novo enquiry initiated against the petitioner, which is not permissible in law as also under the Rules. The learned senior counsel therefore submits that the averments made in the affidavit make it clear that being dissatisfied with the earlier conclusions of the enquiry officer, Department had appointed a new enquiry officer to complete the proceedings. It is submitted that these actions of the respondents is in conflict with the Judgments the law laid down by the Apex Court. In support of his contentions, he has pressed into service the following judgments: (i) Vijay Shankar Pandey Vs. Union of India and Anr, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 589 and (ii) K.R Deb Vs. C.C.E., reported in (1971) 2 SCC 102 5. Mr. T.C Chutia, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate as also Mr. J. Handique, learned counsel representing the Revenue Department strongly opposed the contentions of the learned senior counsel to the petitioner. It is submitted that there is no infirmity in the enquiry conducted against the petitioner. It is only in view Page No.# 5/9 of the fact that the earlier enquiry officer stood transferred that the subsequent enquiry officer was appointed for completion of the enquiry and which is evident from the recital of the order dated 24.07.2024. It is further submitted that in view of the representations or replies submitted by the petitioner that the relevant documents were not furnished. The copies sought for by the petitioner were duly furnished to the writ petitioner on 08.07.2024. Thereafter, the enquiry was completed and ample opportunity was granted and thereafter the enquiry officer came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved and action was recommended. This enquiry report having been accepted by the disciplinary authority, the impugned order of dismissal was issued. The learned counsel for the respondents also strongly disputes the contentions raised that there was any de novo enquiry initiated against the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Pleadings available on record have been carefully perused. 7. There is no dispute that there was an enquiry officer appointed earlier to initiate the departmental proceedings against the petitioner. The enquiry officer was appointed on 17.07.2023 and the said enquiry officer had submitted a report on 31.08.2023, which is enclosed to the writ petition. 8. A careful perusal of the report reveals that the enquiry officer had come to the conclusion that the petitioner was found guilty on the ground of misconduct which caused embarrassment to government and demeans the public service. The enquiry officer even went to the extent of imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner for his offence. The contentions raised by the petitioner that prior to the conclusion of the enquiry, the relevant documents and the list of witnesses were not furnished, although the same has been disputed by the respondents. However, from the records, it could not be pointed out that the same was furnished to the petitioner prior to the submission of the enquiry report dated 31.08.2023. However, on the basis of the reply and the representations filed by the petitioner ventilating his grievances Page No.# 6/9 that the enquiry was not conducted as per the procedure. The relevant documents were not furnished to the petitioner nor he was given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, it appears that the department proceeded to appoint another enquiry officer purportedly for completion of the departmental proceedings by order dated 24.07.2024. It appears to the court that the contention raised by the petitioner that the subsequent enquiry officer was appointed because the department was dissatisfied with the earlier report submitted by the enquiry officer appears to be a correct position on facts in view of the clear averment in the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 4 at paragraph-4 where there is a clear agreement that not being satisfied with the enquiry report submitted by Smti. Jharnajyoti Patagiri, ACS, the then ADC and Enquiry officer of the said departmental proceeding, the District Commissioner being the disciplinary authority, Kamrup Metropolitan District, had appointed a new enquiry officer for completion of the proceedings. 9. The procedure laid down under the Assam Discipline and Appeal Rules, insofar as Rule 9 is concerned, is very categorical. The entire process by how a departmental proceeding is to be initiated against the government officer is clearly delineated under the Rules. The procedure mandated under the Rules has to be compulsorily followed. If the proceedings are undertaken under the said Rules, there is no quarrel on the factual position that the petitioner, being a government servant, is governed by the procedure prescribed under the Assam Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1964. 10. Coming to the judgments pressed into service by Mr. Chowdhury, learned Senior Counsel, it is seen that in K.R Deb (Supra), the Apex Court held that while there is no strict restraint on the department for initiating a de novo proceeding if it appears to the authority that the procedure prescribed has not been followed, ordinarily the de novo proceeding cannot be initiated, if the conclusions arrived at by the first enquiry, was found not acceptable to the departmental proceedings. In Vijay Shankar Pandey (Supra), the law enunciated by the Apex Court in K.R Deb (Supra) has been reiterated by the Apex Court. The relevant paragraph is extracted below: Page No.# 7/9 25. The Court in K.R. Deb [K.R. Deb v. CCE, (1971) 2 SCC 102] held that: (SCC p. 105, paras 12-13) “12. It seems to us that Rule 15, on the face of it, really provides for one inquiry but it may be possible if in a particular case there has been no proper enquiry because some serious defect has crept into the inquiry or some important witnesses were not available at the time of the inquiry or were not examined for some other reason, the disciplinary authority may ask the enquiry officer to record further evidence. But there is no provision in Rule 15 for completely setting aside previous inquiries on the ground that the report of the inquiring officer or officers does not appeal to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority has enough powers to reconsider the evidence itself and come to its own conclusion under Rule 9. 13. In our view the Rules do not contemplate an action such as was taken by the Collector on 13-2-1962. It seems to us that the Collector, instead of taking responsibility himself, was determined to get some officer to report against the appellant. The procedure adopted was not only not warranted by the Rules but was harassing to the appellant.” (emphasis supplied) and allowed the appeal of K.R. Deb [K.R. Deb v. CCE, (1971) 2 SCC 102] . 26. It can be seen from the above that the normal rule is that there can be only one enquiry. This Court has also recognised the possibility of a further enquiry in certain circumstances enumerated therein. The decision however makes it clear that the fact that the report submitted by the enquiring authority is not acceptable to the disciplinary authority, is not a ground for completely setting aside the enquiry report and ordering a second enquiry. 11. A perusal of the law makes it clear that while under the Discipline and Appeal Rules, there is no provision for a de novo proceeding, yet if it appears to the authorities that the procedure mandated under law was not followed and in order that no prejudice is caused to the delinquent officer, a fresh enquiry is to be conducted but a fresh enquiry or further enquiry or de novo enquiry to overcome the lacunas cannot be treated to be on the same footing as a de novo enquiry instituted by the authorities merely because the conclusions of the earlier enquiry officer was not found favorable by the disciplinary authority. 12. In the facts of the present case, the earlier enquiry officer proceeded with the enquiry and concluded by giving its findings on by enquiry report and also imposed Page No.# 8/9 punishment of compulsory retirement. In the subsequent enquiry which was instituted by appointing a fresh enquiry officer purportedly for concluding the departmental proceedings, there is a clear reference to the earlier conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer. This reference makes it clear that the subsequent enquiry officer has also been influenced by the conclusions arrived at by the earlier enquiry officer. Such action is not permissible or contemplated under law. Under the provisions of the Rules of 1964, if the disciplinary authority was not satisfied that the procedure mandated by law was not followed by the enquiry officer then there were ample opportunities for the disciplinary authority to make necessary amends to the lacuna which may have crept in. However, it appears from the pleadings available before the court that the disciplinary authority had attempted to appoint the second officer purportedly for conclusion of the departmental proceedings without there being any explanations in the face of the conclusions arrived at by the first enquiry officer. 13. Under such circumstances, this court is of the view that the manner in which the department had conducted the enquiry against the petitioner is ex-facie illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Rules of 1964 read with the law enunciated by the Apex Court as also followed by the Gauhati High Court. The conclusions of the departmental disciplinary authority and the conclusions of the enquiry officer and the consequential order passed by the disciplinary authority therefore stands interfered with set aside and quashed. The matter is remanded back to the authorities and the department will now direct initiation of departmental proceedings or enquiry by the enquiry officer, who is a freshly appointed enquiry officer by giving proper notice to the petitioner. The relevant documents, list of witnesses, and all other materials which are required to be relied upon during the process of enquiry must be furnished to the petitioner by proper official communication. If the petitioner wishes to file any reply upon receipt of these materials, then adequate opportunity therefore should also be granted to the petitioner. Upon the reply being filed within the time specified by the department, the respondent authority will proceed for a fresh enquiry against the Page No.# 9/9 petitioner and thereafter submit the necessary report. Needless to say, the prescriptions under Rule 9 and 9A of the Discipline and Appeal Rules must be adhered to by the department. 14. In view of the interference of the order of dismissal and during the process, the enquiry is to be conducted, the petitioner will be kept to be under deemed suspension and will be entitled to subsistence allowance as per Rules. The petitioner is permitted to raise his defense before the departmental authority including the maintainability of the proceedings and the charges thereof. 15. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant