Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010006472026 2026:GAU-AS:1228- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/418/2026 NADA TADO SON OF LATE NADA TADU, RESIDENT OF C/O- DEEPAK KR. MEDHI, HOUSE NO. 9A, SWARAJ NAGAR, BYLANE NO. 2, GANESHGURI, POST OFFICE - GUWAHATI- 781006, POLICE STATION- DISPUR, DISTRICT- KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SHASTRI BHAVAN, DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001. 2:INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY (IGNOU) REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE- CHANCELLOR 93 MAIDAN GARHI SAINIK ASHRAM HEADQUARTER NEW DELHI - 110068. 3:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR REGIONAL CIRCLE IN GUWAHATI IGNOU REGIONAL CENTRE HOUSE NO. 71 GHCH ROAD CHRISTIAN BASTI DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781005. 4:THE DIRECTOR/ INQUIRY OFFICER Page No.# 2/3 NCDS IGNOU (PRESENTING OFFICER) 93 MAIDAN GARHI SAINIK ASHRAM HEADQUARTER NEW DELHI -110068 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B K SEN, MR A HUSSAIN,N HASAN,S HOQUE Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER Date : 02.02.2026 Heard Mr. B. K. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Gogoi, learned CGC for the respondent No.1. [2.] Having regard to the grievance projected by the petitioner, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at this stage. [3.] On perusal of the prayer portion of the writ petition, it is seen that the petitioner has made multiple prayers and therefore upon due consideration, this Court is inclined to entertain this writ petition at this stage only in respect of the grievance that the departmental proceeding is not brought to its logical conclusion at the expense of the petitioner. [4.] The petitioner is working as an Assistant Registrar at IGNOU Regional Centre, Guwahati and on account of certain allegation made against him, a departmental inquiry was initiated against him by issuance of Memorandum dated 20.09.2023 (Annexure-23). Consequently, the Inquiry Officer submitted the Inquiry Report on 01.06.2024, concluding that the article of charge was partially proved. The petitioner was then furnished with a copy of the Inquiry Page No.# 3/3 Report vide letter dated 01.06.2024 (Annexure-36) requiring him to submit a representation against the same, if so desired within seven days from the date of receipt of the letter. The petitioner then submitted his reply to the Disciplinary Authority on 09.06.2024. But despite the same, the Disciplinary Authority has not taken any further steps to conclude the departmental proceeding. In the meantime, those who are junior to the petitioner have been given senior scale of pay while the petitioner has been deprived on the ground of pending departmental proceeding. [5.] Taking note of the above position, this Court is of the considered view that the authority concerned should complete the process of departmental inquiry in terms of the relevant rules and provisions within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, if not already completed. [6.] It is also made clear that if the Inquiry Report has been acted upon by passing an appropriate order, the same be communicated to the petitioner without delay. The other grievances raised by the petitioner in the instant writ petition is kept open for consideration, subject to the petitioner filing an appropriate petition in that regard. [7.] With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant