Page No.# 1/11 GAHC010275292025 2026:GAU-AS:14088 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/17/2026 MD. ROUCHAN ALI @ UBC NO. 224 ROUCHAN ALI S/O MR. MOMIRUDDIN MUNCHI, R/O VILLAGE- 270, 2 PAIKAN PT II, MATIA, KRISHNAI, P.O.- KRISHNAI, P.S.- DUDHNAI, DISTRICT- GOALPARA, PIN- 783126, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS. REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 6. 2:THE COMISSIONER AND SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM ASSAM SACHIVALAYA DISPUR-781006 ASSAM. 3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE OFFICE OF THE DGP ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781007 ASSAM. 4:SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR DISTRICT ASSAM. 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE GOALPARA DIST- GOALPARA ASSAM Page No.# 2/11 6:THE ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SOUTH SALMARA DISTRICT ASSAM 7:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE WESTERN RANGE ASSAM BONGAIGAO Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S P DAS, MS. S BAISHYA,MS C BORA,MR. ANGSHUMAN DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. T C CHUTIA, SR. GA :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE Date on which judgment is reserved : 10.09.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 23.09.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative of the judgment? : No Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes JUDGEMENT & ORDER (CAV) Heard Mr. S. P. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. C. Chutia, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. B. Bishaya, learned counsel for the State respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the order Page No.# 3/11 dated 03.07.2023, passed by the Superintendent of Police, South Salmara, Mankachar District, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service, as well as the appellate order dated 29.02.2024, passed by the Inspector General of Police, Western Range, Bongaigaon, Assam, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal has been rejected. The petitioner further seeks a direction upon the respondents to reinstate him in service with full pay and arrear salaries and also to furnish all the documents relating to Departmental Proceeding No. 03/2017 arising out of both the enquiries. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable (AB) in the Assam Police with effect from 04.01.1994. On 01.02.2017, one Shri Jagadish Debnath lodged an FIR alleging, inter alia, that four persons in police uniform had entered a hotel and after assaulting him, had snatched away an amount of Rs.1,70,000/-. The said FIR was registered as Agia P.S. Case No. 17/2017, under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. In connection with the said case, the petitioner was arrested on 06.02.2017 and was subsequently released on bail on 08.05.2017. In the meantime, the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 06.02.2017. 4. A departmental proceeding was thereafter initiated against the petitioner by issuance of a show-cause notice dated 19.07.2017, under Section 65 of the Assam Police Act, 2007 read with Rule 66 of the Assam Police Manual Part-II, Article 311 of the Constitution of India and Rule 7 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. The petitioner submitted his written statement denying the allegations and asserting, inter alia, that he had no involvement in the alleged occurrence. He also relied upon the Command Certificate dated 28.01.2017 to contend that he had been detailed for Assembly duty at Guwahati on the day of occurrence. Page No.# 4/11 5. In the meantime, pending completion of the Departmental Enquiry, the suspension of the petitioner was subsequently revoked by order dated 05.11.2017, without prejudice to the Departmental Proceedings. It is the case of the petitioner that the first enquiry conducted pursuant to the departmental proceeding suffered from certain procedural deficiencies and the enquiry report submitted therein was not accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, by order dated 23.08.2018, a de-novo enquiry was directed in respect of the same charges, with a fresh Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer being appointed. 6. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was never served with any notice of the said de-novo enquiry and was, therefore, deprived of an opportunity to participate in the enquiry, cross-examine the departmental witnesses and otherwise defend himself. The de-novo enquiry was accordingly conducted behind his back and the findings therein were recorded without affording him a reasonable opportunity of hearing. It is further contended that the earlier enquiry report was also never furnished to him. 7. It is the further case of the petitioner that during the pendency of the departmental proceedings, the Enquiry Officer was subsequently changed and by order dated 19.07.2021, another Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed. The petitioner was also transferred from Goalpara D.E.F. to South Salmara-Mancachar D.E.F. by order dated 19.04.2022 and continued to serve there until the order of dismissal. 8. Eventually, by order dated 03.07.2023, the petitioner was dismissed from service. However, according to the petitioner, before passing the said order of dismissal, neither a copy of the enquiry report nor any notice affording him an opportunity to submit his representation against the findings of the Enquiry Officer was furnished to him. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal Page No.# 5/11 dated 22.09.2023, before the Director General of Police, Assam, which was subsequently rejected by the Inspector General of Police, Western Range, Assam, Bongaigaon, vide order bearing R.O. No. 58 dated 29.02.2024. 9. Mr. S. P. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order of dismissal is vitiated by serious procedural irregularities and violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was neither given notice of the de-novo enquiry nor afforded an opportunity to participate therein and cross- examine the departmental witnesses. He submits that the report of the earlier enquiry was also not furnished to the petitioner, thereby depriving him of an opportunity to point out the deficiencies, if any, in the earlier proceedings and to effectively defend himself in the subsequent proceeding. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from the aforesaid infirmities, before imposition of the major penalty of dismissal, the enquiry report on the basis of which the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to pass the impugned order was not furnished to the petitioner, nor was he afforded an opportunity to submit his representation against the findings recorded therein, which is in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and the procedure prescribed under Rule 66 of the Assam Police Manual, Part-II. In support of his submission, learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. Vs. B. Karunakar & Ors., reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727, to contend that furnishing the enquiry report to the delinquent employee is an essential component of a reasonable opportunity of defence and the principle of natural justice and that the employee must be afforded an opportunity to make a representation against the findings recorded therein before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusion. Page No.# 6/11 11. Mr. Das, learned counsel, further submits that the petitioner has been subjected to discriminatory and disproportionate treatment vis-à-vis the co- accused, Md. Samir Jalal, who was proceeded against in connection with the same occurrence and was imposed the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect by order dated 15.05.2023. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2013) 3 SCC 73, to project that the doctrine of equality applies even amongst persons found guilty of the same misconduct and the parity in punishment amongst co-delinquents similarly placed is required to be maintained. 12. He submits that despite the criminal case arising out of the same FIR still being pending and the petitioner having consistently denied his involvement in the alleged occurrence, the Department proceeded to impose the extreme penalty of dismissal without awaiting the outcome of the criminal case. Therefore, he submits that having regard to the aforesaid circumstances and the failure of the appellate authority to properly consider the procedural infirmities raised in the appeal, the impugned order of dismissal dated 03.07.2023 and the appellate order dated 29.02.2024 warrant interference by this Court. 13. On the other hand, Mr. T. C. Chutia, learned Senior Counsel for the State respondents, submits that the departmental proceedings have been conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure and sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to defend himself. He submits that no de-novo enquiry was initiated against the petitioner; rather, the same departmental proceeding was continued by the subsequent Enquiry Officer, with the earlier findings, statement of allegations and list of witnesses being retained. Page No.# 7/11 14. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the materials collected during the investigation disclosed sufficient evidence of the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged offence and the complainant had identified the petitioner at the place of occurrence. He submits that considering the petitioner’s position as a member of the police force and the serious nature of the misconduct alleged against him, the Disciplinary Authority, upon consideration of the findings of the departmental proceedings, rightly imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. 15. As regards the petitioner’s reliance on the pendency of the criminal case, learned Senior Counsel submits that the criminal proceeding and the departmental proceeding operate in distinct fields and may proceed simultaneously. He submits that the allegation of discriminatory treatment is not sustainable, as another co-delinquent, UBC/92 Ashraful Alom, was also imposed the major penalty of dismissal from service. 16. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that although no separate notice was formally issued to the petitioner before passing the order of dismissal, the petitioner had been afforded sufficient opportunity to defend himself during the departmental proceeding. He submits that the enquiry was conducted with due care and diligence and there was no violation of Articles 14 and 311 of the Constitution of India or the provisions of the Assam Police Act, 2007 and the Assam Police Manual, Part-II. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order of dismissal dated 03.07.2023 and the appellate order dated 29.02.2024 do not warrant interference by this Court. 17. Mr. S. P. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, while rejoining his submissions, submits that the respondents have failed to negate the petitioner’s specific grievance that no notice of the de-novo enquiry was served upon him and he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the departmental Page No.# 8/11 witnesses. He submits that the respondents have also admitted that neither the enquiry report nor the second show-cause notice was furnished to the petitioner before imposition of the major penalty of dismissal, in violation of the prescribed procedure and the principle of natural justice. The respondents have sought to justify the punishment by referring to the penalty imposed upon another co- delinquent, Ashraful Alom, while failing to explain the substantially lesser punishment imposed upon the co-accused, Md. Samir Jalal, arising out of the same occurrence and departmental proceedings. Therefore, he submits that the aforesaid procedural infirmities, coupled with the disparity in punishment, render the impugned orders unsustainable in law. 18. Due consideration has been extended to the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 19. From the pleadings and the rival submissions, it emerges that the petitioner, while serving as a Constable (AB) in the Assam Police, was proceeded against departmentally in connection with the allegations arising out of Agia P.S. Case No. 17/2017. The petitioner was initially subjected to a departmental enquiry, which was thereafter followed by a further enquiry pursuant to the order dated 23.08.2018. The petitioner contends that he was not served with any notice or afforded due opportunity in the subsequent enquiry and the enquiry report was never furnished to him before the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to impose the major penalty of dismissal from service. 20. The respondents, on the other hand, contend that the departmental proceedings have been duly conducted and the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity to defend himself. According to the respondents, there was no de-novo enquiry, but only continuation of the departmental proceedings by the subsequent Enquiry Officer. However, the respondents do not dispute Page No.# 9/11 that the petitioner was not furnished with the enquiry report before the order of dismissal dated 03.07.2023 was passed. 21. In the aforesaid backdrop, the issue which arises for consideration is whether the order of dismissal can be sustained when the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner before the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to take the final decision. 22. The law relating to furnishing of the enquiry report to the delinquent employee before the Disciplinary Authority takes a final decision is no longer res integra. In B. Karunakar (supra), as relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that furnishing of the enquiry report to the delinquent employee, where the Enquiry Officer is different from the Disciplinary Authority, forms part of the reasonable opportunity of defence and the principle of natural justice. The delinquent employee is required to be afforded an opportunity to submit his representation against the findings recorded in the enquiry report before the Disciplinary Authority takes its final decision. 23. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner before the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to pass the order dated 03.07.2023 dismissing him from service. Therefore, it appears that the petitioner was denied an opportunity to submit his representation against the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer before the Disciplinary Authority took the final decision, which constitutes violation of the principle of natural justice and vitiates the decision-making process culminating in the order of dismissal. 24. In view of above, this Court does not deem it necessary to examine the Page No.# 10/11 other contentions raised by the petitioner, including the question as to whether the subsequent enquiry was in the nature of a de-novo enquiry or a continuation of the earlier proceedings, the alleged disparity in punishment amongst the co-delinquents, or the effect of the pendency of the criminal proceeding. This Court also does not deem it appropriate to enter into the merits of the charges levelled against the petitioner. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid procedural infirmity, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 03.07.2023, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service, as well as the appellate order dated 29.02.2024, cannot be sustained in law. 25. Consequently, the order dated 03.07.2023, passed by the Superintendent of Police, South Salmara, Mankachar District, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service, as well as the appellate order dated 29.02.2024, passed by the Inspector General of Police, Western Range, Bongaigaon, Assam, are hereby set aside and quashed. 26. The respondent authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith. However, the respondent authorities shall be at liberty to proceed with the departmental proceedings in accordance with law from the stage of furnishing the enquiry report to the petitioner. Upon furnishing the enquiry report, the petitioner shall be afforded reasonable opportunity to submit his representation thereon, whereafter the competent authority shall proceed to take decision in accordance with law. 27. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the charges levelled against the petitioner. The respondent authorities shall be at liberty to proceed with the departmental proceedings in accordance with law from the stage indicated hereinabove and take a fresh decision uninfluenced by any observation made in this judgment touching upon the Page No.# 11/11 merits of the charges. 28. The question of consequential service and monetary benefits shall be considered by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable rules and upon conclusion of the departmental proceedings. 29. With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant