Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010020212022 2025:GAU-AS:9343 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1046/2022 JADUBANGSH ROY @ JADUBANGSH RAY S/O LT SIPUJAN ROY, R/O VILL- DHENTULA, P.O.-CHENGNOL, P.S.- NALBARI, DIST- NALBARI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME, GOVT OF ASSAM. 2:DGP THE STATE OF ASSAM AT DGP OFFICE ULUBARI GHY-06 3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BARKURA NALBARI ASSAM PIN- 781341. 4:ADDL S P BARKURA NALBARI ASSAM PIN- 781341. 5:ABI/R.O. POLICE RESERVE MILANPUR Page No.# 2/9 NALBARI ASSAM PIN- 781341 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S P ROY, MR M DEB,MS S DAS Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : Date: 22.07.2025 Heard Mr. S. P. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. U. Sharma, learned Government Advocate representing the State respondents. 2. The petitioner, by way of instituting the present proceeding has presented a challenge to an order dated 06.02.2020, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Nalbari (Disciplinary Authority), imposing upon the petitioner the penalty of removal from service. 3. The facts in brief requisite for the purpose of adjudication of the issues arising in the present proceeding is noticed herein below: - The petitioner, while working as a Constable with the O.R. Police Reserve, Nalbari, was placed under suspension vide an order dated 15.05.2019, pending drawal of departmental proceedings against him. Thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 20.05.2019 was served upon the petitioner, interalia, alleging therein that basing on the allegations submitted by his wife of he having eloped with his daughter-in-law, an enquiry was conducted and the allegations so leveled was found to be proved to some extent. Accordingly, the petitioner was alleged to have an illicit relationship with his daughter-in- law, which was held to be disgusting. It was further alleged that the petitioner thereby had cheated his legal wife and it was seen that he had committed a gross misconduct. Page No.# 3/9 Accordingly, the petitioner was charged with gross misconduct which renders him unfit for further retention in service in a disciplined police force. The petitioner, on receipt of the said show-cause notice submitted his written statement thereto. The said written statement submitted by the petitioner not being found to be satisfactory, an enquiry was directed against the petitioner in the matter. The Enquiry Officer, on conclusion of the enquiry, submitted its report holding the charges leveled against the petitioner to have been established. On submission of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority, on consideration of the same, proceeded to pass the order dated 06.02.2020, imposing upon the petitioner the punishment of removal from service. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding. 4. Mr. S. P. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has submitted that a mere perusal of the show-cause notice dated 20.05.2019, would go to reveal that from the allegations so leveled against him therein, no misconduct is borne out against the petitioner therefrom. He has submitted that the petitioner had, in his reply, while denying the allegations leveled against him has also contended that the same does not bear out any misconduct against him in the matter. Mr. Roy has further submitted that a perusal of the enquiry report would go to reveal that the Enquiry Officer had proceeded in the matter with a pre-determined mind and the contentions raised by the petitioner, in his deposition during the enquiry, was clearly ignored. Mr. Roy has further submitted that the allegations so leveled against the petitioner pertains to his private life and has got no relation to the duties so discharged by him and accordingly, a misconduct not being borne out of the matter against him, a disciplinary proceeding was not permissible to be so instituted against him in the matter. 5. Mr. S. P. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that upon submission of the enquiry report, a copy thereof was not furnished to the petitioner thereby, preventing him from placing his stand with regard to the conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer before the disciplinary authority and accordingly, his interest came Page No.# 4/9 to be prejudiced. He submits that on the ground of non-furnishing of the enquiry report to the petitioner, the order dated 06.02.2020 would mandate an interference by this Court. 6. Per contra, Ms. U. Sharma, learned Government Advocate, submits that the allegations leveled against the petitioner in the show-cause notice dated 20.05.2019, is of serious nature and the same reflects the conduct of the petitioner. She submits that the petitioner being a member of the disciplined police force is required to demonstrate exemplary behavior even in his private life. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the allegations leveled against the petitioner would go to reveal that his character is doubtful and accordingly, if the allegations so leveled are so proved, he would not be fit to be retained in a disciplined police force. 7. Ms. U. Sharma, learned counsel by referring to the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer has submitted that the Enquiry Officer, on consideration of the evidences coming on record in the enquiry had proceeded to hold that the allegations leveled against the petitioner in the show-cause notice dated 20.05.2019 was established and accordingly, the charge leveled against him was proved. 8. Ms. U. Sharma, learned counsel, by referring to the affidavit filed by the respondent authorities, stated that although there is no proof of service of the enquiry report upon the petitioner, it is submitted that the petitioner, having referred to the enquiry report in course of hearing of the present writ petition and having made submissions thereon, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner in the matter, on account of non-service of the enquiry report to him before imposition of the penalty upon him by the disciplinary authority vide the order dated 06.02.2020. Ms. Sharma has submitted that the Enquiry Officer, having drawn conclusions in the matter basing on the materials coming on record in the enquiry, this Court should not second-guess the conclusions so drawn; and the same being so based on materials coming in the enquiry, the same can form the basis of imposition of penalty against the petitioner herein. In the above premises, Ms. Sharma submits that the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner would not mandate any interference. Page No.# 5/9 9. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 10. At the outset, the allegations and charges leveled against the petitioner vide the show-cause notice dated 20.05.2019, being relevant is extracted herein below: - “In exercise of the power conferred by Govt. notification No. ABP-58/62/228 dt. 05.12.1967, you are hereby asked to Show Cause under Sec. 65 of Assam Police Act 2007, read with rule 66 of APM Part III, and article 311 of the Constitution of India as to why any of the penalties prescribed therein should not be inflicted upon you on the following charges based on the statement of allegation attached herewith. Charge: - As per report submitted by ABI Subhash Ch. Das, Police Reserve, Nalbari based on the allegation submitted by your wife Smti Uttara Nath that you had been eloped your daughter in-law and not given any financial support to your legal wife since long. As directed, ABI Subhash Ch. Das, Police Reserve, Nalbari made an enquiry and consulted with some responsible persons from the locality from which its came to light that the allegation brought against you is seemed to be true to some extent. Moreover, it is also mentioned in the report that you confessed about non-providing of financial support to your family since long, for which your family is spending a crucial times due to crisis of money. Under the above fact and circumstances, it appears that you have in an illicit relationship with your daughter-in-law, which is disgusting and thereby cheated your legal wife and it is seen that you have committed gross misconduct. You are therefore charged with gross misconduct which renders you unfit for further retention in service in a disciplinary police force. Hence you are liable to be charged accordingly.” 11. A perusal of the show-cause notice dated 20.05.2019, would go to reveal that the wife of the petitioner had complained that the petitioner had eloped with his daughter-in- law and did not lend any financial support to his wife, since long. Accordingly, it was Page No.# 6/9 alleged that it appears that the petitioner has illicit relationship with his daughter-in-law, which was treated to be a commission of gross misconduct by him and accordingly, the petitioner was charged with gross misconduct which has the effect of rendering him unfit for further retention of service of a disciplined police force. 12. A perusal of the said allegations would go to reveal that the same has got no nexus with the duties required to be discharged by the petitioner. In other words, the allegations leveled against the petitioner in the show-cause notice dated 20.05.2019 do not emanate from the discharge of duties by him but have been so leveled basing on allegations leveled by his wife relating to his personal life. Accordingly, from the allegations so leveled against the petitioner vide the show-cause notice dated 20.05.2019, this Court is of the considered view that no misconduct against the petitioner is borne therefrom. 13. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court would consider the enquiry report submitted in the matter by the Enquiry Officer. A perusal of the enquiry report would go to reveal that the Enquiry Officer had examined 5(five) departmental witnesses including the wife of the petitioner herein. Having examined the said witnesses, the petitioner was also examined in the enquiry. 14. A perusal of the statement made by the petitioner (extract of which has been set out in the enquiry report), would go to reveal that the petitioner had denied the charges leveled against him. It is seen that the petitioner had stated that he and his wife had been married for 40 years and had two sons and two daughters. He further deposed that his son and his wife often used to torture him mentally and physically and once his son Dharmeswar Roy had attempted to kill him using a knife resulting in injury being sustained by him. The petitioner has contended that for the torture as meted out to him, he started living away from his house in a rented accommodation at Amayapur and even stopped giving financial aid to his son and wife. The allegation that he has illicit affair with his daughter-in-law and that both were staying together in a rented house at Amayapur, was denied by the petitioner. He clearly denied all the allegations and had stated that the allegations were made only to frame him. Page No.# 7/9 15. The Enquiry Officer, while drawing her conclusions had referred to the statements made by the departmental witnesses but, ignored the statements made by the petitioner in the enquiry. Basing on the statements made by the departmental witnesses, the Enquiry Officer drew conclusions that all the departmental witnesses were aware of the illicit relationship with the daughter-in-law and that the statements of the departmental witnesses that the petitioner had inflicted physical violence upon his wife and also tried to kill his son. It was concluded that the sole reason for such conduct on the part of the petitioner was on account of his illicit relationship with his daughter-in-law. While proceeding to draw the said conclusions, the Enquiry Officer miserably failed to take into account the statements made by the petitioner in the enquiry. Further, the Enquiry Officer failed to appreciate that there was no material brought on record to establish that the petitioner was in an illicit relationship with his daughter-in-law. 16. In view of the above position, the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer, having demonstrated to have been so drawn without reckoning the statements of the petitioner, such conclusions in the considered view of this Court cannot form the basis of any imposition of punishment upon the petitioner. The disciplinary authority without appreciating the said aspects of the matter had, on receipt of the enquiry report, proceeded vide order dated 06.02.2020, to record a conclusion that in the enquiry, the charges leveled against the petitioner was established in detail with the help of the witnesses. Further, by holding that the petitioner was maintaining an illicit relationship with his daughter-in-law, which act was held to be unbecoming of a disciplined police force, the disciplinary authority proceeded to proceed upon the petitioner, punishment of removal from service vide the impugned order dated 06.02.2020. 17. As noticed herein above, the behavior of the petitioner and/or his conduct as set out in the show-cause notice dated 20.05.2019, which has been considered to be improper by the disciplinary authority, in the considered view of this Court, has got no nexus with the duties discharged by the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the show-cause notice dated 20.05.2019 would not be maintainable Page No.# 8/9 and the same would mandate interference by this Court. 18. This Court, having concluded that no misconduct in the matter is borne out against the petitioner, the enquiry report as well as the order dated 06.02.2020 also cannot be sustained and would require to be interfered with. 19. In view of the above conclusions, the order dated 06.02.2020 along with the enquiry report, as well as the show-cause notice dated 20.05.2019 stands set aside and quashed. 20. The petitioner had retired from his services on reaching the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.05.2022. Accordingly, the respondent authorities shall now deem the petitioner to have remained in his services w.e.f. 06.02.2020 till 31.05.2022; and shall notionally fix the salaries receivable by the petitioner for the said period. However, the petitioner, for the period w.e.f. 06.02.2020 till 31.05.2022 shall not be entitled to any arrears of pay and allowances by applying the principle of “No work no pay”. 21. The petitioner now having been deemed to be in his service w.e.f. 06.02.2020 till 31.05.2022, on the interference being made by this Court in the order dated 06.02.2020; the petitioner would be authorized his pension and pensionary benefits. The respondent authorities now shall determine the salaries receivable by the petitioner as on 31.05.2022 by notionally fixing his pay and allowances w.e.f. 06.02.2020. Basing on the pay and allowances so determined in respect of the petitioner, as on 31.05.2022, in terms of the directions passed herein above, the pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner shall be so computed and released to him. 22. The pension and pensionary benefits receivable by the petitioner be finalized, along with the release to him the arrears of pension within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 23. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Page No.# 9/9 JUDGE Comparing Assistant