Page No.# 1/21 GAHC010135382025 2026:GAU-AS:9343 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3462/2025 RATNESWAR DAS SON OF LATE DHANIRAM DAS R/O HOUSE NO. 3, KAMAKHYA NURSERY, NEAR NEW TEMPLE GATE, GUWAHATI-781009, KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM, PHONE- 6000571426. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006, ASSAM 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 ASSAM 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (M) LICHUBAGAN HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-781036. 4:THE INQUIRY OFFICER OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP METROPOLITAN LICHUBAGAN Page No.# 2/21 HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-781036. 5:THE COMMISSIONERF OF POLICE ASSAM NERIPSTR BUILDING KHANAPARA NEAR SCIENCE MUSEUM GUWAHATI-781022 KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. 6:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE BHARALUMUKH P.S. GUWAHATI-781009 ASSAM 7:THE INVESTIGATION OFFICER BHARALUMUKH P.S. GUWAHATI-781009 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K N CHOUDHURY, MR. D SARAF,MR. S S GUPTA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPT BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 24.06.2026 Heard Mr. K N Choudhury, Learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D Saraf, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. S Dutta, Learned Standing Counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management, Assam, appearing for Respondent No. 1 and Ms. M Bhattacharjee, Page No.# 3/21 Learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7. 2. The Petitioner, by way of instituting the present Writ Petition, has presented a challenge to an order dated 27.05.2025, issued by the District Commissioner, Kamrup Metropolitan District, imposing upon the Petitioner, a penalty of dismissal from service, on conclusion of a departmental proceeding, instituted against him. 3. As projected in the Writ Petition, the Petitioner, while working as a Lat Mandal, under Guwahati Revenue Circle, Kamrup (M), was arrested on 15.12.2023, in connection with Bharalumukh Police Station Case No. 357/2023. 3.1 The Petitioner, was thereafter, enlarged on bail, vide order dated 30.12.2023, by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M). The Petitioner having remained in detention for more than 48 (Forty-Eight) hours, he was considered to have been placed under deemed suspension. 3.2 The Petitioner, accordingly, on being enlarged on bail, had submitted a representation dated 04.01.2024, praying for permission for resuming his duties. The disciplinary authority of the Petitioner, thereafter, vide an order dated 13.01.2024, proceeded to Page No.# 4/21 place the Petitioner under suspension, w.e.f the date of his detention, i.e. 15.12.2023, invoking provisions of Rule 6 (2) of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964. Thereafter, a departmental proceeding came to be instituted against the Petitioner, vide issuance of a show-cause notice dated 27.03.2024. The Petitioner, after having inspected the listed document, submitted his show-cause reply in the matter, on 09.04.2024. The contentions raised by the Petitioner in his show-cause reply, having been found to be not satisfactory, an Enquiry was directed to be conducted and an Enquiry Officer came to be appointed in the matter, along with a Presenting Officer. 3.3 The Enquiry Officer, thereafter, conducted the Enquiry and on conclusion of Enquiry, submitted an Enquiry Report. A copy of the said Enquiry Report was forwarded to the Petitioner, vide a communication dated 29.03.2025. The Petitioner, had also submitted his representation against the said Enquiry Report, on 03.04.2025. 3.4 Thereafter, the District Commissioner, Kamrup Metropolitan District, on considering the materials coming on record, in the Enquiry, as well as, the findings of the Enquiry Officer Page No.# 5/21 in the Enquiry Report, in light of the representation submitted by the Petitioner, proceeded to concur with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in his Enquiry Report and, vide order dated 27.05.2025, imposed upon the Petitioner, the penalty of dismissal from service. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner has instituted the present Writ Petition. 4. Mr. K N Choudhury, Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, has drawn the attention of this Court to the show-cause notice dated 27.03.2024 and has submitted that the charges framed against the Petitioner, therein, are vague to the core of it. He submits that on a perusal of the said charges, the basis for framing of the said charges is not discernible, inasmuch as, no particulars have been set-out of the allegations, which may exist against the Petitioner in the matter. He submits that a statement of allegation was not annexed to the show-cause notice. Mr. K N Choudhury, Learned Senior Counsel submits that the Petitioner was required to submit his show-cause reply, basing on such vague and indefinite charges. Accordingly, he submits that the show-cause notice, on account of the vagueness of the charges Page No.# 6/21 framed against the Petitioner, therein, would mandate an interference from this Court. 5. Mr. K N Choudhury, Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, thereafter, by referring to the Enquiry Report, has submitted that in the Enquiry Report, the Enquiry Officer had recorded, that only the statement of the Petitioner was recorded, therein. He submits that the Enquiry Officer, had thereafter, perused the documents which were brought on record. From the list of documents considered by the Enquiry Officer, as set-out in the Enquiry Report, Mr. K N Choudhury, Learned Senior Counsel, for the Petitioner, submits that only one of such documents considered, was included in the list of documents, annexed to the show-cause notice dated 27.03.2024, and there is no disclosure, as to how the other documents were received in the Enquiry. Mr. K N Choudhury, Learned Senior Counsel submits that from the Enquiry Report, it is evident that no departmental witness was examined in the enquiry. Accordingly, he submits that the findings of the Enquiry Officer, as recorded in the Enquiry Report, are not based on admissible evidences coming on record in the enquiry. 5.1 Mr. K N Choudhury, Learned Senior Counsel for the Page No.# 7/21 Petitioner, submits that from the records, it is evident that the statement of one Sri. Aminul Islam, was recorded. However, he submits that Sri. Aminul Islam, had not deposed during the enquiry held against the Petitioner, in the presence of the Petitioner, rather the report submitted by him, on 10.03.2024, before the Addl. District Commissioner, Kamrup (M), was treated as his statement in the enquiry. It is submitted that the Petitioner, on account of the said procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer, for conduct of the enquiry, was denied an opportunity to cross-examine the said witness. 5.2 Mr. K N Choudhury, Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, admittedly, not being on the basis of admissible evidences coming on record in the Enquiry, the same would not mandate an acceptance and mandate an interference, by this Court. 5.3 Mr. K N Choudhury, Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has further submitted that the disciplinary authority having drawn his satisfaction for the purpose of imposing the penalty of dismissal from service, upon the Petitioner, vide order dated 27.05.2025, solely basing on the Enquiry Report, the enquiry Page No.# 8/21 being vitiated, the conclusions drawn by the disciplinary authority, would also not mandate an acceptance and the order dated 27.05.2025, would mandate an interference from this Court. 6. Ms. M Bhattacharjee, Learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the Respondent No. 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7, has submitted that the charges framed against the Petitioner, in the show-cause notice dated 27.03.2024, are definite charges and on a perusal of the same, the Petitioner was in a position to discern, therefrom, the misconduct, alleged against him. She submits that the Petitioner, after being granted access to the listed document, had submitted his show-cause reply and, therein, had not raised any plea, with regard to any prejudice being caused to him in submitting the said reply, on account of the vagueness of the charges. Accordingly, she submits that the contentions of the Learned Senior Counsel that the show-cause notice would mandate interference, on account of the vagueness of the charges framed, therein, against the Petitioner, would not mandate an acceptance from this Court. 6.1 Ms. M Bhattacharjee, Learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, further submits that from a perusal of the Page No.# 9/21 Enquiry Report, it would be evident that the Enquiry Officer, basing on the materials coming on record in the Enquiry, had drawn his conclusions, with regard to the charges framed against the Petitioner. She submits that the allegations, which formed the basis of the charges framed against the Petitioner, were clearly established from the evidences coming on record in the Enquiry and the same was also duly noticed by the Enquiry Officer, which is apparent from the findings of the Enquiry Officer, recorded in the Enquiry Report. Accordingly, she submits that the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer that the charges framed against the Petitioner were substantiated, would not mandate an interference. She has further submitted that the disciplinary authority, having concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the charges leveled against the Petitioner in the show-cause notice dated 27.03.2024, having been found to have been established, the penalty of dismissal from service, as imposed upon the Petitioner, would not mandate an interference from this Court. 7. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. The background leading to the institution of the Page No.# 10/21 departmental proceedings against the Petitioner, as noticed, hereinabove, not being disputed, the same is not reiterated. 9. A departmental proceeding came to be instituted against the Petitioner, vide issuance of a show-cause notice dated 27.03.2024. The charges framed against the Petitioner, being relevant, is extracted, hereinbelow : “Charge I: As per the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime), when you were posted in the Office of the Circle Officer, Guwahati Revenue Circle, you were arrested in connection with Bharalumukh Police Station Case no. 557/2023 U/S 420/406/409/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, you are charged with violation of Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended for committing gross misconduct and failure to maintain absolute integrity. Charge II: When you were posted in the Office of the Circle Officer, Guwahati Revenue Circle you as a public servant, were involved in fraudulent activities and hence you are charged with the offence of criminal misconduct. Charge III: When you were posted in the Office of the Circle Officer, Guwahati Revenue Circle, you had indulged in alleged misdemeanors, hence you are charged for abuse of your Official position.” 10. Along with the show-cause notice, a list of witnesses and a list of documents, were also annexed. In the list of witnesses, one Sri. Aminul Islam, Inspector, (UB), Crime Branch Police Station, was included as the departmental witness. Further in the list of documents, a communication dated 16.03.2024, received from the said Sri. Aminul Islam, was incorporated. Page No.# 11/21 11. The contention of the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, that the charges framed against the Petitioner, in the show-cause notice dated 27.03.2024, were vague and accordingly, a prejudice was caused to the Petitioner, in submitting an effective show-cause reply, is being examined by this Court. 12. On a perusal of the charges framed against the Petitioner, this Court finds that under Charge No. I, it was alleged that, as per the report of the Investigating Agency, it was found that the Petitioner was arrested in connection with Bharalumukh P.S Case No. 357/2023, and therefore, the Petitioner was charged with violation of Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended, for committing gross misconduct and failure to maintain absolute integrity. The said charge, in the considered view of this Court, is a charge which would be permissible to be framed against the Petitioner in the criminal proceedings instituted against him, in the matter. The said charge cannot be a charge which would mandate to be considered in a departmental proceeding. Further, the said charge does not spell out the allegations, basing on which the charge was so framed. Accordingly, the said charge, in the considered view of this Court, is vague to the core of it. Page No.# 12/21 Further, the said charge was not one which can be enquired into in a departmental proceeding. 13. As regards the Charge No. II, framed against the Petitioner, in the show-cause notice dated 27.03.2024, it is projected that the Petitioner, while posted in the Office of the Circle Officer, Guwahati Revenue Circle, was involved in fraudulent activities, and hence, he was charged with offence of criminal misconduct. The said charge also does not spell out the fraudulent activities, which were alleged to have been committed by the Petitioner and further, the charge being one of commission of a criminal misconduct, the same, in the considered view of this Court, is not one which is to be so examined in a departmental proceeding, the same falls in the realm of the criminal proceedings, instituted against the Petitioner. 14. A perusal of the Charge No. III, would reveal that it was alleged, therein, that the Petitioner, while posted in the Office of the Circle Officer, Guwahati Revenue Circle, had indulged in alleged misdemeanors. Hence, he was charged of having abused his official position. The said charge, also in the considered view of this Court, is vague to the core of it, inasmuch as, it does not spell Page No.# 13/21 out in details, the allegations, basing on which, such charge was so framed against the Petitioner. 15. The vagueness of the charges, framed against the Petitioner, is further compounded by the absence of a statement of allegation, basing on which the said charges were so drawn, being annexed to the show-cause notice. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the charges, so framed against the Petitioner, were not so framed, strictly, in terms of the provisions of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964. 16. Rule 9 (2) of the said Rules of 1964, mandates the disciplinary authority to frame definite charges, on the basis of allegations, on which the enquiry is proposed to be held. It further mandates that the charges, together with a statement of allegations on which they based, is to be communicated in writing to the Government Servant, requiring him to submit a written statement of defence, thereto. This Court finds that the mandate of Rule 9 (2), was clearly violated, while issuing the show-cause notice date 27.03.2024, to the Petitioner, herein. In addition to the allegations, forming the basis for framing the charges, not being Page No.# 14/21 disclosed in the show-cause notice, a statement of allegations, mandated to be issued, along with a show-cause notice, was admittedly not prepared and issued to the Petitioner. Accordingly, on the said count itself, the very disciplinary proceeding, instituted against the Petitioner, would be mandated to be interfered with. 17. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court would now examine the Enquiry Report, submitted by the Enquiry Officer. 18. On a perusal of the Enquiry Report, this Court finds that the Enquiry Officer, therein, had recorded that only the statement of the Petitioner was recorded during the course of the Enquiry. As noticed, hereinabove, in the show-cause notice, the only document relied upon, to establish the charges framed against the Petitioner, was a report submitted by one Sri. Aminul Islam, Inspector, (UB), Crime Branch Police Station. A perusal of the documents considered by the Enquiry Officer, during the Enquiry, it is revealed that the said report was considered in the Enquiry. However, in addition to the said documents, 9 (Nine) further documents were also found by this Court to have been considered by the Enquiry Officer. However, it has not been disclosed in the Enquiry Report, as to the manner in which the said additional Page No.# 15/21 documents had come on record, during the Enquiry. 19. Ms. M Bhattacharjee, Learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent No. 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7, had furnished the records of the departmental proceeding, instituted against the Petitioner. From the records, this Court finds that the Report dated 16.03.2024, submitted by Sri. Aminul Islam, Inspector, (UB), Crime Branch Police Station, was treated to be the statement of the said witnesses in the Enquiry. Admittedly, the said witness was not examined in the Enquiry, in the presence of the Petitioner, inasmuch as, there is no material available in the departmental proceeding file, to establish the said position. Further, the additional documents, considered by the Enquiry Officer, are also not found to have been introduced in the Enquiry, through a departmental witness. Accordingly, the Petitioner is found to have been denied an opportunity to cross-examine the said departmental witness. The manner, in which the statement of the departmental witness was so recoded by the Enquiry Officer in the Enquiry, is also found to be in clear violation of the provisions of Rule 9 (6) of the Rules of 1964. 20. In the case on hand, it is seen that the petitioner had Page No.# 16/21 no opportunity to dispute the documents relied upon, inasmuch as, the same were not so exhibited in the enquiry through examination of witnesses. The said violation has the effect of vitiating the enquiry, so instituted against the petitioner and the enquiry report, being so submitted without permitting the petitioner to exercise his rights, as conferred, vide the provisions of Sub Rule (6) of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1964, the enquiry, as well as, the enquiry report submitted basing, thereon, stand vitiated. 21. It is a settled position of law that mere exhibition of a document would not also tantamount to an admission of its contents. The manner in which the documents were received in evidence in the enquiry, would reveal that the contents of the documents were not proved and accordingly, the exhibited documents cannot be elevated to the status of admissible evidence and the Enquiry Officer could not have placed reliance on the same for drawing his conclusion in the matter. 22. Applying the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570, to the facts of the present case, it is seen that in the present Page No.# 17/21 proceeding, admittedly, the documents were not exhibited through witnesses. The vital right of the petitioner to cross-examine such witness, having been so violated, a clear prejudice is found to have been caused to the Petitioner, on being not permitted, to dispute the contents of the documents so exhibited. Therefore, it has to be held that evidences as received in the Enquiry was so received in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, and the same cannot be construed to be legally admissible evidence. The Enquiry Officer, having relied upon the said evidence for arriving at his finding in the matter, the findings so recorded in the enquiry report, against the petitioner, stands vitiated and it can also be safely held that the findings of the Enquiry Officer was so recorded basing on no evidence. 23. In view of the conclusions reached hereinabove, with regard to enquiry proceeding so initiated against the petitioner, more particularly, the prejudice caused to the petitioner on account of the manner in which evidences were received by the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry so held, this Court holds that the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer with regard to charges framed against the petitioner, being based on inadmissible evidence, the Enquiry Page No.# 18/21 Report would not mandate acceptance. Accordingly, the enquiry report, submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 08.01.2024, would mandate an interference from this Court. 24. In view of the above discussions, this Court finds that the show-cause notice dated 27.03.2024, along with the Enquiry Officer’s Report dated 04.02.2025, would mandate an interference from this Court. Accordingly, the show-cause notice dated 27.03.2024, as well as, the Enquiry Officer’s Report dated 04.02.2025, in the Enquiry held against the Petitioner, in pursuance to the said show-cause notice dated 27.03.2024, stand set-aside. 25. Having interfered with the show-cause notice dated 27.03.2024, as well as, the Enquiry Report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, in pursuance, thereof, the order dated 27.05.2025, issued by the disciplinary authority, imposing a penalty of dismissal from service, being solely based on the findings, recorded by the Enquiry Officer in his Enquiry Report, the findings of the Enquiry Officer, being held to be vitiated, the said order dated 27.05.2025, would also mandate an interference from this Court. Accordingly, the order dated 27.05.2025, also stands set-aside. 26. Having interfered with the order of penalty imposed Page No.# 19/21 upon the Petitioner, along with the show-cause notice dated 27.03.2024 and the Enquiry Report, this Court would now consider the reliefs that is to be granted to the Petitioner. 27. This Court has interfered with the departmental proceedings instituted against the Petitioner, on a technicality and not on merits, considering the nature of the allegations leveled against the Petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the same is required to be examined in a proper manner, by instituting fresh proceedings, against the Petitioner. Accordingly, the following directions are being issued ; (i) The show-cause notice dated 27.03.2024, along with the order dated 27.05.2025, having been set-aside, the Petitioner is to be reinstated in his services, forthwith. (ii) However, considering the nature of the allegations, existing against the Petitioner, it is directed that on reinstatement of the Petitioner, he shall remain under suspension. (iii) The Petitioner shall also be deemed to have remained under suspension, w.e.f 27.05.2025 and the subsistence allowance, be released to the Petitioner, w.e.f 27.05.2025. (iv) The Respondent authorities are given a liberty to consider Page No.# 20/21 the allegations, existing against the Petitioner, in its proper perspective and in the event, it is found that the same brings on record, commission of a misconduct by the Petitioner, to draw up fresh departmental proceeding, by issuance of a fresh show-cause notice to the Petitioner, in terms of the provisions of Rule 9 (2) of the Rules of 1964. (v) The Respondent authorities shall arrive at a decision, with regard to the initiation of a fresh departmental proceeding against the Petitioner, within a period of 60 (Sixty) days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order, from the Petitioner. (vi) The Petitioner, being now required to be placed under suspension, such suspension of the Petitioner, shall continue for a further period of 60 (Sixty) days, w.e.f the date of submission by him of a certified copy of this Order, before the disciplinary authority, to facilitate the disciplinary authority, to arrive at a decision, as to whether, a fresh departmental proceeding is mandated to be instituted against the Petitioner, herein. (vii) It is provided that in the event, no decision is arrived at by the Respondent authorities, for initiation of a fresh departmental proceeding against the Petitioner and no show-cause notice is Page No.# 21/21 issued to him, within a period of 60 (Sixty) days, w.e.f the date of submission of a certified copy of this order, the order of suspension of the Petitioner shall stand revoked on the 61st day and the Petitioner would be mandated to be reinstated in his service, with all consequential benefits. 28. With the above observations and directions, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of. 29. The records of the departmental proceeding, as furnished by Ms. M Bhattacharjee, Learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, be returned forthwith. JUDGE Comparing Assistant