Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010007272025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1134/2025 MAKRAM HUSSAIN MAZUMDER S/O LATE RAFIQUL MAZUMDER, R/O NATUN PANIGAON, P.O.-PANIGAON,. P.S.-SADAR, DIST- NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GHY-6 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ULUBARI GUWAHATI 3:THJE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY CUM SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE NAGAON ASSAM 4:THE ENQUIRY OFFICER OF THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEIDNG REPRESENTED BY ADDL. S.P. NAGAON ASSAM 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE NAGAON ASSAM 6:THE ADDITIONAL SP(HQ) NAGAON ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B P BORAH, MR J. B. CHOUDHURY,MR. A Page No.# 2/3 KHANDAKAR,MISS. J GOGOI,MR R YASIN,MR P J DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM ORDER Date : 03/03/2025 Heard Mr. B.P. Borah, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for the State. The writ petitioner herein was serving as the Personal Security Officer (PSO) attached to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nagaon, when a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him which, culminated in the order dated 28/09/2024 issued by the Disciplinary Authority, dismissing the petitioner from service. Mr. Borah submits that although his client had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, no action has been taken to dispose of the appeal till date. Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned Government Advocate, Assam, on the other hand, submits that the appeal has been preferred before the wrong authority i.e. the Superintendent of Police and that is why, the matter is still pending. He submits that the petitioner ought to have preferred the appeal before the Inspector General of Police. There is, however, a consensus at the Bar that even if the appellate authority has been wrongly mentioned in the memo of appeal, yet, it would be permissible for the Departmental Authorities to transmit the records to the competent appellate authority for consideration of the appeal, in accordance with law. Since it is a case of dismissal from service, Mr. Borah seeks expeditious disposal of the appeal. Page No.# 3/3 In view of the above and as agreed to by the learned counsel for both the sides, this writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of motion hearing by providing that within two weeks from today, the records of the appeal preferred by the petitioner be transmitted to the competent appellate authority. Thereafter, the appeal be heard and disposed of on merit, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 90 (ninety) days from the date of receipt of the records. Whatever be the outcome of the appeal, the same be communicated to the petitioner in writing. If the petitioner continues to remain aggrieved in the matter, it would be open for him to approach this Court once again by filing appropriate proceeding. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant