Page No.# 1/22 GAHC010254592025 2026:GAU-AS:10117 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6519/2025 MATINUR RAHMAN SON OF LATE MAQUIBAR RAHMAN, RESIDENT OF- SOUTH SARANIA, GUWAHATI-03, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FOOD, PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, JANATA BHAWAN, DISPUR-06, ASSAM. 2:ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM FOOD PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT JANATA BHAWAN DISPUR-06 ASSAM 3:THE COMMISSIONER FOOD PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND LEGAL METROLOGY R.K. MISSION ROAD P.O.-ULUBARI DIST- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM PIN-781007 4:THE SECRETARY Page No.# 2/22 FOOD PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT JANATA BHAWAN DISPUR-06 ASSAM. 5:THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY CUM ENQUIRY OFFICER SMTI ANASUA DUTTA BARUA THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FOOD PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT JANATA BHAWAN DISPUR-06 ASSAM. 6:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER MORIGAON DISTRICT- MORIGAON ASSA – B E F O R E – HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI For the Petitioner : Mr. D Das, Senior Advocate; Mr. K Mohammed; Mr. Y Khound; Mr. S M Munir, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. T C Chutia, Senior Govt. Advocate; Mr. B Bikhaya, Advocate. Date on which judgment is reserved : N/A Date of pronouncement of judgment : 21.07.2026. Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment ? : No. Whether the full judgment has been pronounced : Yes. Page No.# 3/22 J UDGMENT & O RDER Heard Mr. D Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K Mohammed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T C Chutia, learned senior government advocate assisted by Mr. B Bishaya, learned Government advocate for the respondents. 2. By way of the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 04.08.2025, whereby the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner on the basis of the enquiry report dated 23.04.2025 submitted by the enquiry officer pursuant to the show-cause notice dated 25.11.2024. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Sub- Inspector in the Food, Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs Department, Government of Assam on 18.01.1991. Thereafter, the petitioner served in different capacities at various places after earning promotions from time to time. In the year 2022, while serving at Kamrup (Rural) as Superintendent, the petitioner was directed to function as the In-charge Assistant Director, Food, Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs Department, by orders dated 13.12.2022 and 27.12.2022. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner joined as the In- charge Assistant Director at Morigaon. Subsequently, upon his promotion to the post of Assistant Director, he joined the said post at Morigaon on 17.01.2024. While discharging his duties at Morigaon, the petitioner was transferred by order dated 18.09.2024 and was accordingly released on 08.10.2024. Aggrieved by the transfer order, the petitioner instituted WP(C) No. 5316/2024 before this Page No.# 4/22 Court. However, the said writ petition was subsequently withdrawn. Thereafter, on 16.10.2024, the petitioner received a show-cause notice alleging the following: “It has come to the notice of the undersigned that you called a press conference on 16/10/2024 and spoke on matters related to faulty government procedure without following laid down rules and regulations of the government You were released from your post at Morigaon district by the office of the undersigned vide order no eCF MPE 106795/10 dt 08 10 2024 but you continued functioning and signing files which is in gross violation of official rules Your allegation against the undersigned is not tenable as per rule 145/3 of Assam Financial Rules which clearly states that an officer on being released can handover charge to the next Senior Gazetted Officer of the concerned department Your behaviour and mode of functioning surmounts to insubordination and disrespect towards your superior authority. Under the given circumstances you are asked to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against you for gross insubordination and wilful noncompliance of government order. Your reply should reach the office of the undersigned within 2 (Two) days of receipt of this notice.” 4. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his reply on 18.10.2024, denying all the allegations leveled in the said show-cause notice. In the meantime, by order dated 14.11.2024, respondent No. 5 placed the petitioner under suspension. 5. Subsequently, respondent No. 5 issued another show-cause notice dated 25.11.2024, accompanied by the statement of allegations, the list of witnesses and the list of documents, alleging, inter alia, the following charges: “In exercise of the power conferred under Rule-9(2) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India, you are hereby directed to show cause as to why disciplinary proceedings shall not be initiated against you and why any of the penalties prescribed in Rule-7 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 Page No.# 5/22 will not be inflicted upon you on the following charges. Whereas, in the interest of public service, you were transferred to Margherita, Dist Tinsukia vide Govt. Notification No. eCF 202094/12 dated 18.9.2024. Whereas, the District Commissioner, Morigaon released you from the post of Assistant Director, FPD&CA Morigaon on 08.10.2024 vide Order No.Ecf. MPE. 106795/10 dated 08/10/2024 and you were directed to handover charge to Smt. Sulakshana Borpartrogohain, ACS, Addl. DC, Morigaon vide letter No. CA.1/2024/Pt-II/62 dated 16.10.2024. Whereas, as per charge handing over report received in the Department vide No.MSA.39/91/Pt-II/ dated 18.10.2024, however, you handed over charge of Assistant Director, FPD&CA, Morigaon on 18th October, 2024 to Smt. Sulakshana Borpartrogohain, ACS, Addl. DC, Morigaon. Whereas, the District Commissioner. Morigaon vide letter Memo No.MPE. 7/2022/53-A dated 16.10.2024 had issued you a show cause notice and alleged that you have been continuing to function and sign official files with ill intention and with exercising unauthorized power, in gross violation of official rules. Also you had called a press conference on 16th October 2024 and spoke on matters related to faulty Government procedures and criticized the Government in public domain. Whereas, as per reports received from the District Commissioner. Morigaon, although you were released from the charge of Assistant Director FPD&CA, Morigaon on 08.10.2024. however, you were found continuing to sign official documents after being released from the post of Assistant Director, FPD&CA, Morigaon, with Ill intention and with exercising unauthorized power which is gross violation of official rules and serious breach of official procedure, exercise of unauthorized power, therefore you are charged with Whereas, as per reports received from the District Commissioner Morigaon you had called a press conference on 16.10.2024 and spoke on matters related to faulty Government procedure without following laid down rules and regulations of the Government, and in violation of Assam Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1965 thus, committing insubordination and gross misconduct, violation of Assam Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1965, therefore you are charged with. Whereas, although you were transferred from Morigaon to Margherita, in the interest of public service, you blatantly defied Government directions, thus committing insubordination and gross misconduct, therefore you are charged with. Thus, by non-compliance of Government Orders referred herein above and with your aforementioned unauthorized activities, you have showed complete disregard to the orders of the Government, which is unbecoming of a Government servant and construed as insubordination and misconduct in violation of Assam Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1965. Page No.# 6/22 Now therefore, you are directed to submit your written statement in defense on the above charges within 10 (ten) days from the date of receipt of this communication. Enclosed. 1. Statement of allegations 2. List of Witnesses 3. List of documents” 6. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence denying all the charges leveled against him. Notwithstanding the same, the respondent authorities initiated departmental proceedings, and by communication dated 27.01.2025, the petitioner was directed to appear before the enquiry officer. 7. The enquiry was thereafter conducted by respondent No. 5. Upon conclusion thereof, the enquiry officer held that Charge Nos. 1 and 2 stood proved, whereas Charge No. 3 was not fully established. The enquiry report was submitted on 23.04.2025. 8. Thereafter, in compliance with Rule 9(A) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1964 Rules”), the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner on 08.05.2025. The petitioner submitted his representation on 03.06.2025, disputing the findings recorded in the enquiry report. However, by order dated 04.08.2025, respondent No. 5 imposed upon the petitioner the penalty of compulsory retirement under Rule 7(v) of the 1964 Rules. 9. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. Page No.# 7/22 10. Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the entire departmental proceeding is vitiated, being arbitrary, contrary to the statutory procedure and violative of the principles of natural justice. According to the learned senior counsel, respondent No. 5 acted both as the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority. Having conducted the enquiry herself, respondent No. 5 thereafter accepted her own findings and imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner. 11. It is further submitted that during the course of the enquiry, the Presenting Officer relied upon a preliminary enquiry report prepared by respondent No. 3. However, the petitioner was never furnished with a copy of the said report, nor was he associated with the preliminary enquiry. Consequently, the petitioner had no opportunity to controvert the contents thereof or cross-examine any witness examined during such enquiry. It is contended that reliance upon such material, behind the back of the petitioner, has caused serious prejudice and has vitiated the entire enquiry. It is also submitted that, in any event, the punishment of compulsory retirement is grossly disproportionate to the charges alleged. 12. In support of his submissions, learned senior counsel has relied upon Nirmala L. Jhala vs. State of Gujarat & Another, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 301, to contend that the materials collected during a preliminary enquiry cannot be relied upon in a regular departmental enquiry unless the delinquent is associated with such enquiry and afforded an opportunity to contest the same. According to the learned senior counsel, the reliance placed upon the preliminary enquiry report in the present case is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Page No.# 8/22 13. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the disciplinary authority imposed the impugned penalty solely on the basis of the evidence adduced during the regular departmental enquiry. It is contended that no procedural irregularity was committed in the conduct of the enquiry and that the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity of defence throughout the proceedings. It is further submitted that the enquiry report along with the preliminary enquiry report submitted by the respondent No. 3 was furnished to the petitioner before the penalty was imposed and, therefore, the enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with law, warranting no interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 14. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. I have also perused the materials available on record and considered the authorities cited at the Bar. 15. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the findings recorded in a departmental enquiry. This Court neither re-appreciates the evidence nor examines the adequacy or reliability thereof, provided the enquiry has been conducted in accordance with law. Interference is warranted only where the enquiry is conducted by an incompetent authority; where the prescribed procedure has not been followed; where there has been violation of the principles of natural justice; where the authorities have been influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; where admissible evidence has been wrongly excluded or inadmissible evidence has materially influenced the findings; where the conclusions are wholly arbitrary or perverse; or where the findings are based on no evidence. Page No.# 9/22 16. In State of Andhra Pradesh vs. S. Sree Rama Rao, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1723, the Apex Court held that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, is not constituted as a Court of appeal over the decisions rendered in departmental proceedings. The relevant observations read as follows: “7. There is no warrant for the view expressed by the High Court that in considering whether a public officer is express the misconduct charged against him, the rule followed in criminal trials that an offence is not established unless proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the Court, must be applied, and if that rule be not applied, the High Court in a petition I under Article 226 of the Constitution is competent to declare the order of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry invalid. The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution a court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated, Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may undoubtedly interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion, or on similar grounds. But the departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there be some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution.” Page No.# 10/22 17. A reading of the aforesaid judgment makes it abundantly clear that interference is permissible where the enquiry is conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice or the statutory rules governing the enquiry, or where the decision-making process is vitiated by irrelevant considerations, perversity or arbitrariness. 18. Bearing the aforesaid principles in mind, this Court now proceeds to examine the facts of the present case. 19. It appears from the records that respondent No. 5 issued the show-cause notice dated 25.11.2024 alleging that the petitioner failed to hand over charge upon his transfer and continued to function in the post from which he had already been relieved. Along with the show-cause notice, the statement of allegations, list of witnesses and list of documents were furnished. 20. It further appears that, by order dated 24.01.2025, the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Food, Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs Department appointed respondent No. 5 as the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. By communication dated 27.01.2025, the petitioner was informed that the enquiry would commence on 29.01.2025. The petitioner admittedly participated in the enquiry proceedings. 21. Upon completion of the enquiry, respondent No. 5 submitted the enquiry report. A perusal of the report reveals that, while arriving at the findings on the points for determination, respondent No. 5 also relied upon the findings recorded in a preliminary enquiry conducted by respondent No. 3, which had been produced by the Presenting Officer during the departmental enquiry. Admittedly, a copy of the said preliminary enquiry report was never furnished to Page No.# 11/22 the petitioner. 22. It further appears that after considering the petitioner’s representation dated 03.06.2025 against the enquiry report, respondent No. 5 herself proceeded to consider the enquiry report, the petitioner’s representation and the materials on record, and by order dated 04.08.2025 imposed upon the petitioner the penalty of compulsory retirement under Rule 7(v) of the 1964 Rules. 23. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to Rule 7 of the 1964 Rules, which reads as follows: “7. Nature of penalties. The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reason and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government servant, namely: - (i) censure; (ii) withholding of increments of promotion; (iii) recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by negligence or breach of orders to the Government of Assam or the Central Government or any other State Government, or any local or other authority to whom services of a Government servant had been lent; (iv) reduction to a lower service, grade or post, or to lower time-scale, or to lower stage in a time-scale; a (v) compulsory retirement; (vi) removal from service which shall not be disqualification for future employment; (vii) dismissal from service, which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment.” 24. Rule 7 enumerates the various penalties which may be imposed upon a Government servant, including compulsory retirement under clause (v) and dismissal from service under clause (vii), the latter ordinarily operating as a disqualification for future employment. Page No.# 12/22 25. Rule 8 of the 1964 Rules reads as follows: “8. Disciplinary Authority. 1. The Governor may impose any one or more of the penalties specified in rule 7 on any Government servant 2. Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-rule (1), but subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3) any one or more of the penalties specified in rule 7 may be imposed on member of a State Service by the Appointing Authority or by any other authority empowered in this behalf by a general or special order of the Governor. 3. Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule no penalty specified in clauses (iv) to (vii) of the rule 7 shall be imposed by an authority lower than the Appointing Authority.” 26. Rule 9 of the 1964 Rules, which prescribes the procedure for imposing penalties, reads as follows: “9. Procedure for imposing penalties. (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Public Servant; (Inquiry) Act, 1850, no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in rule 7 shall be passed except after an inquiry, held as far as may be in the manner hereinafter provided. (2) The Disciplinary Authority shall frame definite charges on the basis of the allegations on which the inquiry is proposed to be held. Such charges together with a statement of the allegations on which they are based shall be communicated in writing to the Government servant, and he shall be required to submit, within such time as may be specified by the Disciplinary Authority, a written statement of his defence and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person. *(2.1) At the time of delivering the charges, the Disciplinary Authority shall invariably furnish to the Government servant a list of documents and witnesses by which each article of charges is proposed to be sustained. Explanation- In this sub-rule and sub-rule (3), the expression "the Disciplinary Authority" shall include the authority competent under these rules to impose upon the Government servant any of the penalties specified in Rule 7. (3) The Government servant shall, for the purpose of preparing his defence, be permitted to inspect and take extracts from such official records as he may specify, provided that such permission may be refused if for reasons to be recorded in writing, in the opinion of the Disciplinary Authority such records are not relevant for the purpose or its against the public interest to allow him access thereto : Page No.# 13/22 Provided that when a Government servant is permitted to inspect and take extracts from official records due case shall be taken against tempering removal or destruction of records. (4) On received of the written statement of defence, or if no such statement is received within the time specified the Disciplinary Authority may itself inquire into such of the charge as are not admitted or, if it considers it necessary so to do, appoint for the purpose a Board of Inquiry or an Inquiring Officer. (5) The Disciplinary Authority may nominate any person to present the case in support of the charges before the authority inquiring into the charges (hereinafter referred to as the inquiring authority). The Government servant may present his case with the assistance of any other Government servant approved by the Disciplinary Authority, but may not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the person nominated by the Disciplinary Authority as aforesaid is a legal practitioner or unless the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to the circumstances of the case so permits. (6) The Enquiring Authority shall, in the course of the enquiry consider such documentary evidence and take such oral evidence as may be relevant or material in regard to the charges. The Government servant shall be entitled to cross-examine witnesses examined in support of the charges and to give evidence in person and to adduce documentary and oral evidence in his defence. The person presenting the case in support of the charges shall be entitled to cross-examine the Government servant and the witnesses examined in his defence. If the Inquiring Authority declines to examine any witness or to admit any document in evidence on the ground that his evidence or such document is not relevant or material, it shall record its reasons in writing. (7) At the conclusion of the inquiry, the inquiring Authority shall prepare a report of the enquiry, recording its findings on each of the charges together with reasons therefor. ["Explanations- If in the opinion of the Enquiring Authority the proceedings of the enquiry establish any article of charge different from the original article of the charge it may record its findings on such article of charge : Provided that the findings on such article of charge shall not be Page No.# 14/22 recorded unless the Government servant has either admitted the facts on which such article of charge is based or has a reasonable opportunity of defending himself against such article of charge"]. (8) The record of the inquiry, shall include (i) the charges framed against the Government servant and the statement of allegations furnished to him under sub-rule (2); (ii) his written statement of defence, if any; (iii) the oral evidence taken in the course of the enquiry; (iv) the documentary evidence considered in the course of the inquiry; (v) the orders, if any, made by the Disciplinary Authority and the Inquiring Authority in regard to the inquiry; and (vi) a report setting out the findings on each charge and the reasons therefor. (9) The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it is not the Inquiring Authority; consider the record of the inquiry and record its finding on each charge. (10) Major Penalties. If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its finding on the charges and on the basis of evidence adduced during the inquiry, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in Clauses (iv) to (vii) of Rule 7 should be imposed on the Government servant it shall make an order imposing such penalty and it shall not be necessary to give the Government servant any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed : Provided that in every case where it is necessary to consult the Commission the record of the inquiry shall be forwarded by the Disciplinary Authority to the Commission for its advice and such advice shall be taken into consideration before making an order imposing and such penalty on the Government servant"]. (11) Minor Penalties. Page No.# 15/22 If the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to its findings on the charges, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iii) of Rule 7 should be imposed, it shall, pass appropriate orders and in every case in which it is necessary to consult the Commission, shall do so, after consulting the Commission. (12) (a) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, it shall not be necessary to follow the procedure laid down in the preceeding sub-rules in cases where it appears to the authority competent to impose the penalty at the initial stage of the proceedings that the penalty of censure would be adequate, but if at any later stage it is proposed to impose any other penalty specified in Rule 7, the procedure laid down in the said rules shall be followed. (b) No order imposing the penalty of censure shall however be passed, except after- (i) the Government servent is informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the allegations on which it is proposed to be taken and given an opportunity to make any representation he may wish to make; and (ii) such representation, if any, is taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority.” 27. A plain reading of Rule 9(2) makes it clear that the disciplinary authority is required to frame definite charges based upon the allegations and communicate the same, together with the statement of allegations, to the delinquent Government servant, calling upon him to submit his written statement of defence. 28. It is further evident from Rule 9 (7) that, upon conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer is required to prepare a report recording findings on each of the charges with reasons therefor. Rule 9 (9) further contemplates that where the disciplinary authority is not itself the Enquiry Officer, it shall consider the record of enquiry and record its findings on each charge. Page No.# 16/22 29. In the present case, respondent No. 5 admittedly functioned as the Enquiry Officer and conducted the enquiry culminating in the enquiry report. Thereafter, respondent No. 5 also proceeded to act as the disciplinary authority and accepted her own findings while imposing the impugned penalty upon the petitioner. 30. It also transpires from the enquiry report that respondent No. 5 relied upon the findings recorded in the preliminary enquiry conducted by respondent No. 3 while deciding the points for determination. Admittedly, a copy of the said preliminary enquiry report was never supplied to the petitioner. 31. The questions which, therefore, arise for consideration are: (i) whether reliance upon a preliminary enquiry report during the course of a regular departmental enquiry, without furnishing a copy thereof to the delinquent employee, vitiates the enquiry on account of violation of the principles of natural justice; and (ii) whether, in the facts of the present case, respondent No. 5 could have simultaneously acted as the Enquiry Officer and thereafter, as the disciplinary authority, accepted her own enquiry report and imposed the penalty. 32. It appears from the enquiry report submitted by respondent No. 5 that while recording her findings on the points for determination in respect of the charges framed against the petitioner, she had, inter alia, relied upon the findings recorded in the preliminary enquiry conducted by respondent No. 3 and produced by the Presenting Officer during the course of the departmental enquiry. The said position is further fortified by the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5, wherein the enquiry officer has categorically admitted that the preliminary enquiry report dated 30.11.2024 constituted one of the material pieces of evidence relied upon during the regular departmental Page No.# 17/22 enquiry. Paragraph 14 of the affidavit-in-opposition reads as follows: “14 That with regard to the statement made in paragraph No. 16 to the writ petition the deponent begs to state that the statement made therein is not true. The charge sheet to the Petitioner were issued vide Show Cause Notice dated 25.11.2024 However, the Enquiry Report dated 30.11.2024 as was conducted by Respondent no. 3 was an enquiry report conducted in the field i.e. in the O/o the District Commissioner, Morigaon to trace out the unauthorized activities, post his release from the charge of Assistant Director, FPD&CA, Morigaon vide order dated 08.10.2024 As such, the Enquiry Report dated 30.11 2024 conducted by the Respondent No. 3 was the material evidence for the enquiry conducted by Respondent No 5 in connection with the DP case drawn against the Petitioner.” 33. The question as to the evidentiary value of a preliminary enquiry in a regular departmental proceeding is no longer res integra. The Apex Court in Narayan Dattatraya Ramteerthakhar vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1997) 1 SCC 299, categorically held as follows: “The preliminary inquiry has nothing to do with the enquiry conducted after issue of charge-sheet. The former action would be to find whther disciplinary enquiry should be initiated against the delinquent. After full-fledged enquiry was held, the preliminary enquiry had lost its importance.” 34. The aforesaid principle came to be further explained by the Apex Court in Nirmala J. Jhala vs. State of Gujarat & Another, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 301. After considering Narayan Dattatraya Ramteerthakhar (Supra) along with several earlier authorities, the Apex Court authoritatively held that the materials collected during a preliminary enquiry cannot constitute evidence in a regular departmental enquiry unless such materials are duly proved in accordance with law and the delinquent is afforded an effective Page No.# 18/22 opportunity to contest the same. The relevant observations are reproduced below: “45. In view of the above, it is evident that the evidence recorded in preliminary inquiry cannot be used in regular inquiry as the delinquent is not associated with it, and opportunity to cross-examine the persons examined in such inquiry is not given Using such evidence would be violative of the principles of natural justice. 46. In Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v State of Maharashtra³1 this Court while placing reliance upon a large number of earlier judgments held that cross- examination is an integral part of the principles of natural justice. and a statement recorded behind back of a person wherein the delinquent had no opportunity to cross-examine such persons, the same cannot be relied upon. 47. The preliminary enquiry may be useful only to take a prima facie view, as to whether there can be some substance in the allegation made against an employee which may warrant a regular enquiry. 48. A prima facie case does not mean a case proved to the hilt but a case which can be said to be established if the evidence which is led in support of the case were [to be] believed While determining whether a prima facie case had been made out or not the relevant consideration is whether on the evidence led it was possible to arrive at the conclusion in question and not whether that was the only conclusion which could be arrived at on that evidence" (Vide Martin Burn Ltd v R.N Banerjee32, AIR p. 85, para 27) [See also Bangalore Woollen Cotton and Silk Mills Co. Ltd v B Dasappa33, VC Shukla v State (Delhi Admn )34, Dalpat Kumar v Prahlad Singh35 and Cholan Roadways Ltd. v G. Thirugnanasambandam36]. 49. The issue, as to whether in the instant case the material collected in preliminary enquiry could be used against the appellant, has to be considered by taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case. In the preliminary enquiry, the department placed reliance upon the statements made by the accused-complainant and Shri CB Gajjar, Advocate Shri C B Gajjar in his statement has given the same version as he has deposed in regular enquiry Shri Gajjar did not utter a single word about the meeting with the appellant on 17-8-1993, as he had stated that he had asked the accused-complainant to pay Rs 20,000 as was agreed with by Shri PK Pancholı, Advocate. Of course, Shri CB Gajjar, complainant, has definitely reiterated the stand he had taken in his complaint. The charge-sheet served upon the appellant contained 12 charges. Only the first charge related to the incident dated 17-8-1993 was in respect of the case of the complainant The other charges related to various other cıvıl and Page No.# 19/22 criminal cases The same were for not deciding the application for interim reliefs, etc.” 35. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid decisions leaves no manner of doubt that the object of a preliminary enquiry is only to enable the employer to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case warranting initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Such an enquiry is merely exploratory in nature and is not intended to determine the guilt of the delinquent. Consequently, the findings recorded in a preliminary enquiry cannot, by themselves, be treated as substantive evidence in a regular departmental proceeding unless the materials collected therein are independently proved during the regular enquiry after affording the delinquent full opportunity to rebut the same. 36. Examining the facts of the present case in the light of the aforesaid settled principles, this Court finds that the enquiry officer herself has treated the findings recorded in the preliminary enquiry as one of the foundational materials while deciding the points for determination framed in the departmental proceeding. The enquiry report clearly reflects that the conclusions arrived at therein were not based solely upon the evidence adduced during the regular enquiry, but were also influenced by the findings recorded in the preliminary enquiry. 37. The above conclusion stands further reinforced by the specific stand taken by respondent No. 4 in paragraph 14 of the affidavit-in-opposition, wherein the enquiry officer has unequivocally admitted that the preliminary enquiry report dated 30.11.2024 constituted “the material evidence” in the disciplinary proceeding. Such an admission leaves no room for doubt that the preliminary enquiry report was not merely referred to for the limited purpose of initiating Page No.# 20/22 the disciplinary proceeding but was, in fact, relied upon while determining the guilt of the petitioner. 38. Admittedly, the said preliminary enquiry report was never furnished to the petitioner during the pendency of the regular departmental enquiry. The contention advanced on behalf of the respondents that the report was subsequently supplied to the petitioner along with the enquiry report does not cure the defect. Furnishing the report after the enquiry had concluded could not have enabled the petitioner to explain the allegations contained therein, controvert the materials collected during the preliminary enquiry or effectively cross-examine the persons whose statements formed the basis thereof. The opportunity contemplated under the principles of natural justice is an opportunity before the material is relied upon and not after the findings have already been recorded. 39. Equally untenable is the submission of the respondents that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. The concept of prejudice in departmental proceedings cannot be viewed in a narrow or technical sense. The petitioner, in his representation dated 03.06.2025 against the enquiry report, had specifically asserted as follows: “The bemusing fact here is that the enquiry team from the commissionerate office did not ask me to appear before them, nor did they hear me or ask for any kind of explanation or clarification from my end during the enquiry against me. This implies that the enquiry was not done in a proper judicious manner by the enquiry team.” The above objection clearly demonstrates that the petitioner had consistently asserted that he had been completely excluded from the Page No.# 21/22 preliminary enquiry and was denied any opportunity to participate therein. 40. This Court, therefore, has no hesitation in holding that the preliminary enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner. The report prepared pursuant thereto was admittedly relied upon as material evidence during the regular departmental enquiry without the petitioner ever being associated with such enquiry or being afforded an opportunity to controvert the materials collected therein or cross-examine the persons whose statements were relied upon. Such a course of action is in the teeth of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Nirmala J. Jhala (supra) and constitutes a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The departmental enquiry, therefore, stands vitiated. 41. In view of the foregoing discussion, the first issue is answered in favour of the petitioner. Once this Court has reached the conclusion that the departmental enquiry itself stands vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice, it is neither necessary nor expedient to examine the second issue relating to the legality of respondent No. 5 acting simultaneously as the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority. Any opinion rendered thereon would be purely academic. 42. Consequently, the enquiry conducted against the petitioner stands vitiated and is hereby set aside. As a natural corollary, the impugned order dated 04.08.2025 imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement, having been founded upon such vitiated enquiry, also cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. Page No.# 22/22 43. The respondents shall consequently reinstate the petitioner in service in accordance with law. The consequential service benefits shall also be regulated in accordance with the applicable rules and shall abide by the outcome of any fresh proceeding, if initiated. 44. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the allegations levelled against the petitioner. The interference is confined solely to the legality of the decision-making process. Accordingly, it shall be open to the respondents, if so advised, to initiate and conclude fresh disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner from the stage of the defect noticed herein, strictly in accordance with law and after complying with the principles of natural justice. 45. With the above observations and directions, the instant writ petition, stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant