GAHC010127842025 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEAT W.P(C) NO. 3291/2025 Mr. Subodh Kumar Singh Aged about 53 years, S/O Shri Rajdeo Singh, R/O Balurghat Colony, in front of Narayan Singh College, Mahammadpur, Kazi Muzzaffarpur, Bihar-842001 Presently residing at: Quarter No. 6/V/E, BVFCL Colony, Namrup, P.O. Parbatpur, Dist: Dibrugarh, Assam-786623 ……..Petitioner -Versus- 1. Union of India represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Fertilizers, Ministry of Chemical and Fertilizers, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001 2. M/S Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Limited represented by the Chairman and Managing Director (CMD) having its registered office at Namrup, P.O. Parbatpur, Dist: Dibrugarh, Assam 786623 3. Chairman and Managing Director, M/S Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Limited, Namrup, P.O. Parbatpur, Dist: Dibrugarh, Assam 786623 4. Director (Production), M/S Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Limited, Namrup, P.O. Parbatpur, Dist: Dibrugarh, Assam 786623 5. Senior Manager (Vigilance), M/S Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Limited, Namrup, P.O. Parbatpur, Dist: Dibrugarh, Assam 786623 6. Dy. Manager (Human Resources) M/S Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Limited, Namrup, P.O. Parbatpur, Dist: Dibrugarh, Assam 786623 ……..Respondents – B E F O R E – HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA Advocate for the petitioners : Mr. D. Das, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. P Baruahm, Advocate Advocate for the respondents : Mr. A.K. Dutta, CGC for Respondent No. 1 Mr. N. Deka, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. M. Gogoi, Advocate for Respondents No. 2 to 6 • Date on which Judgment was reserved : NA • Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 18.06.2026 • 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. D Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. P Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.K. Dutta, learned CGC appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. N Deka, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 6. 2. The petitioner is an employee of respondent No.2/ Corporation and he is serving in the rank of Chief Manager. During his service, petitioner was served with a memorandum of charges by the respondent authority initiating departmental proceedings vide memo dated 24.04.2024. In response to the memo of charges, the petitioner filed his written statements and the enquiry proceeded. The enquiry Officer on conclusion has returned a finding on the grounds and reasons mentioned therein that any conclusion through the departmental proceedings on the allegations and charges is not possible. 3. Subsequent thereto, the respondents issued another show cause notice dated 04.02.2025, where on the basis of which the enquiry officer and presenting officers were appointed and the proceedings were initiated. It is at this stage that the petitioner has approached this court praying for interference with the order dated 04.02.2025 and the proceedings thereunder. 4. The case projected on behalf of the writ petitioner is that this order of 04.02.2025 is a de-novo enquiry or a subsequent enquiry initiated by the respondent authority on the same charges. 5. It is submitted that such action on the part of the respondents of initiating a de novo enquiry is not permissible under the Rules as also the law enunciated by this Court as well as by the Apex Court. It is submitted that in terms of the Rules, it is only in the event that the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of the enquiry officer and that too under limited circumstances that any de novo enquiry can be initiated. It is submitted that by the order dated 04.02.2025, there is no disagreement of the disciplinary authority which is reflected, which could have resulted in the de novo enquiry. The learned counsel of the petitioner also submits that because of the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was not considered eligible for responding to an advertisement for appointment to post of Deputy General Manager (Marketing) at the relevant point in time. It is at this stage when the petitioner had approached this court and this court by order dated 13.06.2025 while issuing notice permitted the respondents to proceed with the recruitment process initiated vide advertisement Notice No. HR/11/2025/02 but shall not issue any final order qua the post of DGM(Marketing)(E-7) at Serial No. 4 of the advertisement notice without leave of the Court. This interim order came to be extended from time to time. 6. Per contra, the respondents have contested the case of the writ petitioner by filing their affidavits. It is submitted that the conclusions of the enquiry Officer by order dated 01.11.2024 does not exonerate the petitioner from the charges. It has given the reasons as to why the final conclusions could not be arrived at by the enquiry officer. The disciplinary authority is yet to take up a call on the findings of the report of the enquiry Officer. It is further submitted that the notice or the order dated 04.02.2024 is not a de novo enquiry. It is submitted that on a perusal of the notice dated 04.02025 and the memo of charge earlier issued dated 10.05.2025 will reveal that the charges against the writ petitioner are not one and the same. By the order dated 04.02.2025 in view of the representation made by the workers of the workers union, the proceedings have been initiated. Mr. Deka, learned senior counsel however, submits that as on date, no final decision has been taken by the Authority in respect of the earlier proceedings. Therefore, there is no bar to initiate proceedings on the basis of fresh allegations or charges leveled against the petitioner 7. Mr Das, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has pressed into service a judgment rendered by this Court in W.P(C) No. 6452/2022 (Chiranjeeb Das Vs State of Assam & Ors). 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the pleadings available on record, it is seen that according to the petitioner, the order dated 04.02.2025 is an order directing de novo enquiry in respect of the petitioner notwithstanding the conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer and the submissions in its report of enquiry dated 01.11.2024. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order dated 04.02.2025 does not pertain to the same set of allegations. A plain reading of the order would reveal that it is pursuant to certain allegations levelled against the petitioner on the basis of representations received from the workers. 10. At the outset, it is necessary to refer to the relevant Rules of the Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Limited has its Employees (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules of 2006. The Rules prescribe in Part V, Discipline, the penalties, both minor and major, are listed, and the procedure for imposition of major penalty, as also the procedure for imposition of minor penalty, are described in detailed. 11. In so far as the memo of charges dated 24.04.2024 is concerned, the petitioner, in response to the memorandum of charges, which is followed by the articles of charges dated 10.05.2024 submitted his written statements. The explanations given not being satisfied with by the disciplinary authority, the enquiry officer and presenting officers were appointed and the enquiry proceeded and by order dated 01.11.2024, the enquiry officer submitted the report. Page 6 of 11 12. As per the Rules, Rule 34 prescribes the action on the enquiry report. Rule 34 is extracted below: “34 Action on the Inquiry Report 1. The disciplinary authority, if it is not itself the Inquiring Authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing remit the case to the Inquiring Authority for fresh or further inquiry and report and the Inquiring Authority shall there upon proceed to hold further enquiry according to the provisions of Rule 33 as far as may be. 2. The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiring Authority on any article of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. 3. If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in Rule 30 should be imposed on the employee shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 32 make an order imposing such penalty. 4. If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that no penalty is called for, it may pass an order exonerating the employee concerned. 5. The disciplinary authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the report of the inquiry, if any, held by the disciplinary authority or where the disciplinary authority is not the inquiring authority, a copy of the report of the inquiring authority, together with its own tentative reasons for disagreement, if any, with the finds of inquiring authority on any article of charge to the employee who shall be required to submit, if employee so desires, his/her written representation or submission to the disciplinary authority within fifteen days, irrespective of whether the report is favourable or not to the employee.” 13. A perusal of the Rules revealed that in case of any disagreement by the disciplinary authority on the findings of the inquiring authority on any article of charge, it will record its reasons for disagreement and record its own finding, and if the record is sufficient for the purpose. Upon recording the reasons for disagreement, it will forward a copy of the report of the enquiry and along with a copy of the tentative reasons for disagreement to the delinquent employee. 14. The report of enquiry by the enquiry officer dated 01.11.2024 has concluded that the conclusions to the departmental proceedings with respect to the allegations levelled against the petitioner are not possible and the enquiry report of the enquiry is extracted below: “REPORT OF ENQUIRY The undersigned was appointed as an Enquiry Officer vide, Memorandum no. CMD Pers/22/459/886 dated 18.05.2024, to enquire into charges leveled against Shri Subodh Kumar Singh, Chief Manager (Training), E/no. 0217/7073 The enquiry was conducted in the office chamber of the Enquiry Officer. CHARGE: i) Shri Subodh Kumar Singh, E/no. 0217/7073, Chief Manager (Training), solicited money and advised Shri Dhanjay Tiwari, one of the marketing dealer from Bihar, and advised him to hand over the requisite amount to BVFCL Officer, Shri Ajit Singh, manager 9Marketing). The charged officer did not accept the charge leveled against him before the undersigned. Based on the statements made by the charged officer during four sittings of the departmental proceedings and the documents/record furnished, findings/conclusion of the enquiry is given below:- 1) The charge is based on 02 (two) nos. Recorded Audio clips of telephonic conversation. In the 01 audio clip, there is allegedly voice/conversation of the charged officer whereas the 2nd clip is of conversation/discussion between 02 unknown persons in local dialect (Bhojpuri) regarding prevailing scenario. 2) No documentary proof for any monetary transaction/amount paid is available in the file, Also, there is no witness for the case under consideration. 3) The charged Officer claimed that the audio clip is doctored and he never had such type of conversation with the complainant. He further stated that he had lodged FIR with Mehadiganj Police Station at Patna against the dealer(s) for criminal conspiracy against him as he was receiving threatening calls. 4) Verification of authenticity of the audio clips is beyond the ambit/domain of the Enquiry Officer. 5) In the recently concluded Quarterly Review Meeting hon’ble CVO stated that Vigilance/Departmental enquiry is conducted based on the documentary evidences available in the file. 6) For the above mentioned nature of allegations/charges (for which no documentary evidences or witnesses are available in the file), any conclusion through departmental proceedings is not possible. Submitted please. Encl:- Proceedings, Written Brief of Presenting Officer and Closing arguments of the Charged Officer in original. Sd/ (M.P Sinha) Enquiry Officer Director (Production) & CMD (Additional Charge) and DA” 15. In terms of the provisions of the Rules as discussed above, the disciplinary authority is required to take actions either by accepting the enquiry report and issuing closure orders of the enquiry proceedings or record its reasons and grounds for disagreement by issuing a disagreement note and furnish the same to the delinquent employee, calling for response from the delinquent employee before proceeding in the manner prescribed under the Rules. 16. Mr. Deka, learned senior counsel for the respondents submits that the disciplinary enquiry is yet to come to a conclusion with regard to the findings and therefore at this stage, the matter is still pending with the departmental authority and therefore no decision is taken by the department to proceed for de novo enquiry by issuance of the order dated 04.02.2025 as sought to be projected by the petitioner. He categorically submits that the order dated 04.02.2025 is not a de novo enquiry. He further submits that by order dated 04.02.2025, a fresh departmental enquiry is being proceeded against the petitioner on the grounds and reasons and the allegations mentioned therein. 17. Since the learned counsel for the respondents categorically submits that by order dated 04.02.2.2025, the department is not initiating any de novo proceedings, therefore, the consideration of the arguments in of the parameters as to how and when a de novo enquiry can be initiated need not be addressed by this court. The respondents categorically submit that the order dated 04.02.2025 is a fresh enquiry on the allegations which are reflected in the said order. 18. Upon perusal of the pleadings before the court, it is seen that this order dated 04.02.2025 initiating an internal departmental enquiry is a standalone order. It is not accompanied by the statement of allegations, the list of witnesses, the list of documents as is mandated under the Rules. The Rules are very categorical as to how charge memo is to be issued. The procedure for imposition of major penalty is prescribed in detailed under Rule 33 of the Conduct Rules. Page 10 of 11 19. Rule 33(1) provides that no order for imposition of any major penalty specified in the clauses (f) to (j) of Rule 30 shall be made except after an enquiry is held in accordance with this Rule. 19.1. Rule 33(3) lays down that the departmental authority shall deliver or cause to deliver to the employee, copy of the articles of charges, the statement of imputations of misconduct, misbehavior, and a list of documents and witnesses by which each article of charges is proposed to be sustained and on receipt of such articles of charge, the employee shall be required to submit his or her written statement of defence and if the employee so desires, the employee may be heard in person. The statement is to be filed within a period of 15 days. 20. A plain reading of the Rules as also a plain reading of the order dated 04.02.2025 reflects that the order dated 04.02.2025, although reflects that an internal departmental enquiry is being made in respect of the writ petitioner, the procedure prescribed in Rule 33 has not been followed. 21. Under such circumstances, where the Statutory Rules provide proceeding to be initiated against the delinquent employee, the same are strictly required to be followed. The departmental enquiry under the Rules if it culminates in imposition of a major penalty, will visit the delinquent employee with civil consequences and therefore, the procedure prescribed under the Rules must be rigorously followed. If any proceeding is initiated under the Rules without following the procedure prescribed and laid down under Rule, it will prima facie amount to a violation of the principles of natural justice as also the protection given under any employee under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Any authority, more particularly a public enterprise, if it is required to carry out a particular act in terms of the Rules set, then it must carry out the said act, strictly in terms of the Rules, or not at all. 22. Under such circumstances, this court is constrained to hold that the proceedings initiated by the order dated 04.02.2025, treating it to be an internal departmental enquiry against the petitioner, is totally in conflict with the procedure laid down under the Rules 33 of the Rule. Consequently, the proceedings violate not only the statute but the principles of natural justice and therefore is arbitrary per se. The proceedings sought to be initiated against the petitioner by the order dated 04.02.2025 are therefore interfered with and set aside. 23. The department is given the liberty if it takes a decision to proceed against the petitioner, then the procedure prescribed under the Rules must be followed and sufficient opportunity be granted to the petitioner to defend his charges. 24. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence of the court in respect of the prayer for interference with the de novo or the fresh enquiry. The other prayers made in the writ petition are not pressed for the moment. 25. Since no finding is arrived at by the court, needless to say, in respect of the other prayers, petitioner will have liberty to urge the same if the need so arises. 26. In that view of the matter, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated. Interim order if any stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant