Page No.# 1/11 GAHC010261672025 2026:GAU-AS:9730 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6825/2025 DEEPAK THAPA S/O- RAJAN THAPA, R/O- VILLAGE- BAJALTOLI, CIRCUIT HOUSE, TINSUKIA, PS-TINSUKIA, DIST- TINSUKIA,ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06, DIST.- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (BUILDING) CHANDMARI GUWAHATI ASSAM 3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. TINSUKIA DISTRICT TERRITORIAL BUILDING DIVISION TINSUKIA DIST.- TINSUKIA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R BORA, MS R MEDHI Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, PWD BEFORE Page No.# 2/11 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 16-07-2026 Heard Mr. R. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned standing counsel, PWD appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition is presented a challenge to an order dated 18-11-2025 issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Tinsukia District Territorial Building Division, Tinsukia, terminating the services of the petitioner invoking the provision of Rule 7 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964. 3. The petitioner on being selected by the State Level Recruitment Committee for Gr- IV post was vide order dated 22-05-2023 appointed as Chowkidar (MTS) in the office of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Tinsukia District Territorial Building Division, Tinsukia. While the petitioner was continued with his services in pursuance to the order dated 22-05- 2023, the petitioner was involved in a criminal case being Hamren P.S. Case No. 14/2023, registered under Section 419/ 468/ 471/ 120(B) IPC. 4. The petitioner was placed under arrest in connection with the said case on 16-06- 2023. Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner vide order dated 16-06- 2023, proceeded to place the petitioner under suspension. The petitioner was, thereafter, enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 10-08-2023 passed in B.A. No. 2350/2023. The suspension of the petitioner having been continued and the subsistence allowance of the petitioner not being released, the petitioner being aggrieved had approached this Court by way of instituting W.P.(C) No. 4389/2025. While the said writ petition was Page No.# 3/11 pending consideration by this Court, the subsistence allowance of the petitioner was released to him. A notice was issued to the petitioner on 04-10-2025, requiring him to submit written justification explaining the reason for his arrest in the criminal proceeding and to furnish detail and present status of the police case registered against him. He was also required to adduce valid grounds for revocation of his order of suspension before the Enquiry Committee constituted in the matter. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted a reply to the said notice dated 04-10-2025. It is projected that the petitioner had also appeared before the constituted Enquiry Committee. The Committee, thereafter, submitted a report before the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner on perusal of the said report concurred with the recommendations of the Enquiry Committee and proceeded vide order dated 18-11-2025 to terminate the services of the petitioner by invoking the provision of Rule 6 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1964”). Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 5. Mr. R. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner by reiterating the facts noticed hereinabove has submitted that the termination/ dismissal of the services of the petitioner was so effected by the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner by invoking the provision of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1964. He submits that although the provision of Rule 7 was so invoked for the purpose of dismissing the petitioner from his services, no proceeding as mandated under the provision of Rule 9 of the said Rules of 1964, came to be instituted against the petitioner. He submits that no show-cause notice in terms of the provision of Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 1964 was issued to the petitioner in the matter instituting a Page No.# 4/11 Departmental Proceeding against him. Mr. Bora by referring to the notice dated 04-10- 2025, has submitted that the same was so issued only in respect of the order of suspension issued to the petitioner and the same was not in connection with any charges framed against the petitioner as mandated under the provisions of Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 1964. Accordingly, he submits that the invocation of the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1964 for the purpose of terminating the services of the petitioner was so done in clear violation of the provision of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1964 and accordingly, the order dated 18-11-2025 would not be sustainable. 6. Per contra, Mr. R. Dhar, learned standing counsel, PWD has submitted that the petitioner was terminated from his service by following the required procedure prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1964. He submits that the Enquiry Committee was constituted by the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner for review of suspension of the petitioner as well as for conduct of Departmental Proceeding. The said Committee had duly examined the petitioner in the matter and after examining the materials furnished by the investigating agency with regard to the criminal proceeding instituted against the petitioner, the Committee had recommended for termination of the services of the petitioner. He submits that adequate materials having come on record demonstrating commission of misconduct by the petitioner in the matter, the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner on a due consideration of the materials coming on record including the statement of the petitioner recorded by the Enquiry Committee proceeded vide order dated 18-11-2025 to impose the penalty of termination from services of the petitioner. Mr. Dhar submits that the petitioner was actually imposed with the penalty of dismissal from Page No.# 5/11 service. Accordingly, he submits that the penalty of dismissal from service being imposed upon the petitioner on the ground of proved misconduct, the same would not mandate interference from this Court. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record. 8. The petitioner, herein, in pursuance to the recommendations made by the State Level Recruitment Committee for Gr-IV post, was appointed as Chowkidar (MTS), in the establishment of the respondent No. 3, vide order dated 22-05-2023. Thereafter, the petitioner was attached to the Election Branch of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia vide order dated 07-06-2023. The petitioner was, thereafter, released from the establishment of the respondent No. 3 vide order dated 12-06-2023. The petitioner continued on attachment in the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia, till 16-06-2023. The petitioner at the relevant point of time, was arrayed as an accused in Hamren P.S. Case No. 14/2023 and was placed under arrest on 16-06-2023. The petitioner having been placed under detention on 16-06-2023, the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, i.e. the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 16-06-2023, proceeded to place the petitioner under suspension until further order. Thereafter, the petitioner was enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 10-08-2023 in B.A. No. 2350/2023. The petitioner had projected that he had informed his Disciplinary Authority vide communication dated 16-08-2023 about his enlargement of bail by this Court. However, the said position is disputed by the respondent authority. Being aggrieved by the prolonged suspension occasioning in his case as well as non-release of the subsistence Page No.# 6/11 allowance, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 4389/2025. 9. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26-09-2025, while requiring the respondent authorities to release to the petitioner his subsistence allowance had required the counsel representing the respondents to receive the up-to-date status with regard to the Disciplinary Proceeding, if any instituted against the petitioner, herein. In pursuance to the passing of the said order, the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, i.e. the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 14-10-2025 required the petitioner to submit written justification and appear before the Enquiry Committee as constituted in the matter and to place his contention before the said Committee for revocation of his suspension. The petitioner, accordingly, submitted his written statement before the Disciplinary Authority on 14-10-2025, denying any involvement with the allegations as existing in Hamren P.S. Case No. 14/2023. The petitioner also projects to have appeared before the Enquiry Committee as constituted in the matter. The Enquiry Committee on conclusion of the enquiry conducted, submitted its report in the matter. The Enquiry Committee concluded that the petitioner at the time of his arrest was on probation and was named as accused in Hamren P.S. Case No. 14/2023. Accordingly, the Enquiry Committee recommended that the petitioner be dismissed from Government service in view of this proved misconduct. Basing on the said recommendation of the Enquiry Committee, the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, i.e. the respondent No. 3, proceeded vide order dated 18-11-2025 to terminate the services of the petitioner invoking the provision of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1964. The petitioner was held to have been dismissed from Government service w.e.f. the Page No.# 7/11 date of issuance of the said order. 10. The Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner having invoked the provision of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1964 for the purpose of terminating the services of the petitioner, this Court would now examine the provision of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1964. Rule 7 of the Rules of 1964 prescribes the penalties which would be permissible to be imposed upon a Government servant. Rule 9 of the Rules of 1964 mandates that any penalty specified in Rule 7, shall be permissible to be so imposed after an enquiry, held as far as may be in the manner provided therein. 11. Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 1964 mandates that the Disciplinary Authority shall frame definite charges on the basis of the allegations on which the enquiry is proposed to be held. It further stipulates that the said charge 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 defense and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person. Accordingly, on a conjoint reading of the Rule 7 and Rule 9 of the Rules of 1964, it is seen that a proceeding under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1964, is mandatorily required to be instituted and concluded before a penalty specified under Rule 7 of the said Rules is permissible to be so imposed upon the delinquent. 12. In the case on hand, the purported initiation of the Disciplinary Proceeding against the petitioner is projected to be so done vide issuance of notice dated 04-10-2025. On a perusal of the said notice dated 04-10-2025, this Court does not find that the same was so issued invoking the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1964. The said notice was only Page No.# 8/11 in respect of the order of suspension issued against the petitioner and the petitioner was called upon vide the said notice to urge grounds for revocation of the same. The said notice cannot under any circumstances be construed to be a show-cause notice issued complying with the provisions of the Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 1964. The notice dated 04- 10-2025, being not a notice as contemplated under the provision of Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 1964, no Departmental Proceeding can be held to have been instituted against the petitioner, herein. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner cannot be held to have the jurisdiction to invoke the provision of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1964 to impose upon the petitioner any penalty as specified, therein. 13. This Court finds that the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner vide order dated 18-11-2025, had considered the report submitted by a Departmental Enquiry Committee. The said Committee is projected to have been constituted in compliance with the order dated 26-09-2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4389/2025, to review the suspension of the petitioner and to conduct a Departmental Proceeding against him. From the materials brought on record, it is seen that only a review of the suspension of the petitioner was carried out by the Enquiry Committee so constituted and no Departmental Proceeding came to be instituted against the petitioner in the matter. Further, the said Enquiry Committee cannot also be held to be a Committee as constituted by the Disciplinary Authority in terms of the provision of Rule 9(4) of the Rules of 1964. The Committee in the considered view of this Court was a Committee only constituted to carry out a preliminary enquiry in the matter and nothing further. Accordingly, the report of the said Enquiry Committee cannot be elevated to one submitted in terms of the provisions of Page No.# 9/11 Rule 9(7) of the Rules of 1964. Accordingly, the said report submitted by the Enquiry Committee could not have been reckoned by the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner for the purpose of imposition of any penalty specified under the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1964 upon the petitioner. Accordingly, the order dated 18-11-2025 issued by the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, imposing upon the petitioner the penalty of dismissal from service, in the considered view of this Court, has been so issued without jurisdiction and in clear violation of the provisions for conduct of a Departmental Proceeding as contemplated under the provisions of the Rules of 1964. 14. At this stage, this Court would notice that in the affidavit filed in the present writ petition by the respondent authorities, it was categorically contended that some procedural lapses might have occasioned in the conduct of the proceeding in the matter against the petitioner due to the fact that the Division was newly created and majority of the staff were recruited only in the year 2023 and no experienced personnel was available to handle such Disciplinary Proceeding and court related cases. It was further contended in the said affidavit that there was no witness available to depose in the matter against the petitioner and there was also no documentary evidence available as all such documents were seized by the Hamren Police in connection with the Hamren P.S. Case No. 14/2023. The said contentions made by the respondent authorities in the affidavit further goes to fortify that there was, in fact, no Disciplinary Proceeding instituted in the matter against the petitioner and the order dated 18-11-2025 was so issued without jurisdiction by the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner. 15. In view of the above conclusions reached by this Court, the impugned order dated Page No.# 10/11 18-11-2025 is held to be not sustainable and accordingly, the same stands set aside. 16. This Court having interfered with the order dated 18-11-2025, the respondent No. 3 is directed to forthwith reinstate the petitioner in his services. A Departmental Proceeding having not been instituted against the petitioner in the matter till date in terms of the provisions of Rules of 1964, this Court directs that within a period of 01 (one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent No. 3, shall take a decision basing on the materials available on record as to whether commission of a misconduct by the petitioner in the matter is discernable therefrom. In the event, the respondent authorities including the respondent No. 3, is of the view that a misconduct is discernable in the matter against the petitioner, the respondent authorities shall within the period of 01 (one) month, as permitted by this Court, hereinabove, institute appropriate Departmental Proceeding against the petitioner strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of 1964. 17. The period w.e.f. 18-11-2025 till today, i.e. 16-07-2026, during which period the petitioner had to remain out of service on account of the order of dismissal from service imposed upon him as well as the period of suspension, undergone by the petitioner, shall be dealt with in the manner required, after completion of the Departmental Proceeding if instituted against the petitioner, by acting upon the liberty granted to the respondent authorities to institute such proceeding by this Court, hereinabove. In the event no such proceeding is instituted against the petitioner within a period of 01 (one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, the period of absence of the petitioner, w.e.f. 18-11-2025, till the date of his reinstatement in terms of the directions passed, Page No.# 11/11 hereinabove, shall be regularized as on duty and the petitioner shall be released his salaries for the said period. Further the period of suspension of the petitioner shall also be regularized as on duty with release of his salaries after deducting the subsisting allowance already paid to him. 18. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant