Gauhati High Court
Bhaskar Jyoti Nath vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 29 April, 2026
Page No.# 1/16
GAHC010155242020
2026:GAU-AS:6225
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4661/2020
BHASKAR JYOTI NATH
S/O ANANDA NATH,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MERUWABARI,PO JAIKAIBOWA MAJULI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME
DEPARTMENT, DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM 781006
2:DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
ASSAM POLICE
HEAD QUARTER
ASSAM ULUBARI
GUWAHATI 781007
3:INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
BTAD
KORKAJHAR
ASSAM 783370
4:SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM 78337
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B CHAKRABORTY, MRS P HAZARIKA
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM,
Page No.# 2/16
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
Date : 29-04-2026
Heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.J.
Talukdar, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. P.K. Medhi, learned counsel for the
respondents.
2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present writ petition has presented a
challenge to an order dated 16-10-2014, issued by the Disciplinary Authority, imposing
upon the petitioner a penalty of withholding of 03 (three) annual increments with
cumulative effect, on conclusion of a Departmental Proceeding instituted against the
petitioner.
3. The petitioner while working as a Sub-Inspector, Basistha Police Station, was
placed under suspension pending drawl of the Departmental Proceeding against him.
Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Kokrajhar, as Disciplinary Authority, proceeded to
issue a show-cause notice dated 01-07-2013, to the petitioner, instituting a Departmental
Proceeding against him. The allegations levelled against the petitioner in the show-cause
notice was to the effect that he was found to have been remained unauthorisedly absent,
w.e.f. 27-01-2013 till 06-02-2013. It was further alleged that the petitioner was detailed
to undergo Advance Course on Investigation and Detention of Crime, to be held on CDTS,
Kolkata w.e.f. 16-04-2012 to 27-04-2013, however, the petitioner had not attended the
said training by submitting a prayer petition for deferring his participation in the said
Page No.# 3/16
training by 01 (one) day on account of unavoidable family issue. The further allegation
against the petitioner was that he being detailed for pilot duty with the former Prime
Minister of Bhutan on 02-06-2013 at 07:00 am from the district border Champa Bridge to
Srirampur, the petitioner was found to have remained unauthorisedly absent from his
duty. The petitioner on receipt of the said show-cause notice, submitted his show-cause
reply, thereto, on 06-07-2013 and denied the allegations levelled against him. The reply
submitted by the petitioner not being found to be satisfactory, the Disciplinary Authority
vide order dated 15-07-2013, proceeded to direct for holding of an enquiry into the
charges framed against the petitioner and for the purpose appointed an Enquiry Officer.
The Enquiry Officer, thereafter, conducted an enquiry and on conclusion of the same
submitted his enquiry report. The Disciplinary Authority, basing on the enquiry report
submitted by the Enquiry Officer, without furnishing a copy, thereof, to the petitioner,
proceeded vide order dated 16-10-2014 to impose a penalty of withholding of 03 (three)
annual increments with cumulative effect upon the petitioner. The petitioner being
aggrieved, submitted an appeal before the Appellate Authority through the Disciplinary
Authority on 21-09-2015. However, the same was rejected vide a communication dated
29-09-2015 issued by the Disciplinary Authority by holding that the period of limitation to
prefer an appeal before the higher authority, i.e. the Inspector General of Police (IGP),
BTAD, Kokrajhar, was over.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition.
4. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner after reiterating the facts
noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the Disciplinary Authority while directing for
Page No.# 4/16
conduct of an enquiry in the matter against the petitioner had proceeded vide order dated
15-07-2013, to appoint as Enquiry Officer. He submits that the enquiry was conducted by
the Enquiry Officer, however, no Presenting Officer came to be so appointed. He submits
that the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry had acted as a prosecutor and as a judge, which is
clearly impermissible. Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that the enquiry being so conducted
in terms of the provisions of the Assam Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964, the
Disciplinary Authority in not appointing a Presenting Officer had violated the mandatory
provision of Rule 9(5) of the said rules.
5. Mr. Chakraborty has further submitted that during the enquiry, the petitioner was
not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses who had adduced evidence in
the enquiry. He submits that the denial of opportunity to cross-examine the departmental
witnesses, had resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice and accordingly, the
enquiry stood vitiated. Mr. Chakraborty has further submitted that although from the
order dated 16-10-2014, issued by the Disciplinary Authority, it is seen that an enquiry
report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer so appointed in the matter, a copy, thereof,
was, however, not furnished to the petitioner prior to passing of the order dated 16-10-
2014. He submits that the valuable right of the petitioner to deal with the findings of the
Enquiry Officer, before the same was examined by the Disciplinary Authority was violated
on account of non-furnishing of a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner in the
matter.
6. Mr. Chakraborty further submits that the appeal preferred by the petitioner in the
matter, albeit with delay, was not placed before the Appellate Authority and was rejected
Page No.# 5/16
by the Disciplinary Authority himself holding that the same was so filed after the period of
limitation was over, which was clearly impermissible.
7. In the above premises, Mr. Chakraborty submits that the impugned order of
penalty would mandate an inference from this Court.
8. Per contra, Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the respondent at
the outset submits that the misconduct committed by the petitioner must be examined in
the light of the fact that the petitioner was a member of a disciplined force. It is
submitted that the petitioner had unauthorisedly remained absent w.e.f. 27-01-2013 and
had resumed his duties only on 06-02-2013. He submits that the petitioner was deputed
for undergoing an advance course on investigation and detention of crime at CDTS,
Kolkata, w.e.f. 16-04-2012 to 27-04-2013, however, he refused to attend the same
without assigning any reasonable cause. It was further submitted that the petitioner was
alleged to have remained unauthorisedly absent when he was detailed for pilot duty with
former Prime Minister of Bhutan 02-06-2013. Mr. Talukdar by producing the records of the
Departmental Proceeding has submitted that during the enquiry the departmental
witnesses were examined in presence of the petitioner, however, he had declined to cross-
examine the said witnesses. Accordingly, he submits that the plea taken by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner was denied an opportunity to cross-examine
the witnesses is clearly perverse. He submits that the Enquiry Officer, on conclusion of the
enquiry basing on the materials coming on record including the statement of the
petitioner, herein, had proceeded to draw a conclusion to the effect that the charges
levelled against the petitioner were established. He submits that the said conclusion of
Page No.# 6/16
the Enquiry Officer was so arrived at strictly basing on the materials coming on record
and there is no perversity, therein. He further submits that on considering the nature of
the charges levelled against the petitioner, the penalty of withholding of 03 (three) annual
increments with cumulative effect cannot be held to be disproportionate.
9. In the above premises, Mr. Talukdar submits that the penalty as imposed upon the
petitioner would not mandate interference from this Court.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the
materials available on record.
11. As noticed, hereinabove, the challenge presented to the penalty imposed upon the
petitioner by the learned counsel for the petitioner is on the following grounds:-
(i) That in the enquiry, while the Disciplinary Authority had appointed
an Enquiry Officer, there was no appointment of a Presenting Officer to
present the case on behalf of the department.
(ii) The petitioner was denied an opportunity to cross-examine the
witnesses.
(iii) The Disciplinary Authority before imposing the penalty upon the
petitioners vide the impugned order dated 16-10-2014, had not furnished
to the petitioner a copy of the enquiry report enabling him to present his
stand with regard to the findings arrived at by Enquiry Officer in the
enquiry.
12. This Court has perused the materials brought on record in the writ petition as well
as perused the records of the enquiry proceeding instituted against the petitioner. This
Court finds that vide order dated 15-07-2013, the Disciplinary Authority had appointed an
Page No.# 7/16
Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry, however, no Presenting Officer was appointed for the
purpose. This Court finds that in the enquiry, it is the Enquiry Officer who had assumed
the role of a prosecutor as well a judge.
13. It is settled position of law that when the Enquiry Officer acts as a prosecutor as
well as a judge in a departmental proceeding the principles of natural justice stands
violated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UoI & Ors. Vs. Ram Lakhan
Sharma, reported in (2018) 7 SCC 670, in this connection had drawn the following the
conclusions:-
"27. In State of UP Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, this Court had laid down that
inquiry officer is a quasi-judicial authority, he has to act as independent adjudicator
and he is not a representative of the department/disciplinary
authority/Government. In paragraphs 28 and 30 following has been held:
"28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the
position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a
representative of the department/disciplinary authority/ Government. His
function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in
the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted
evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present
case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence
has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not
have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been
proved against the respondents.
...............................
30. When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service."
28. When the statutory rule does not contemplate appointment of Presenting Officer whether non-appointment of Presenting Officer ipso facto Page No.# 8/16 vitiates the inquiry? We have noticed the statutory provision of Rule 27 which does not indicate that there is any statutory requirement of appointment of Presenting Officer in the disciplinary inquiry. It is thus clear that statutory provision does not mandate appointment of Presenting Officer. When the statutory provision does not require appointment of Presenting Officer whether there can be any circumstances where principles of natural justice can be held to be violated is the broad question which needs to be answered in this case. We have noticed above that the High Court found breach of principles of natural justice in Inquiry Officer acting as the prosecutor against the respondents. The Inquiry Officer who has to be independent and not representative of the disciplinary authority if starts acting in any other capacity and proceed to act in a manner as if he is interested in eliciting evidence to punish an employee, the principle of bias comes into place.
29. Justice M. Rama Jois of the Karnataka High Court had occasion to consider the above aspect in Bharath Electronics Ltd. Vs. K. Kasi. In the above case the order of domestic inquiry was challenged before the Labour and Industrial Tribunal. The grounds taken were, that inquiry is vitiated since Presenting Officer was not appointed and further Inquiry Officer played the role of prosecutor. This Court held that there is no legal compulsion that Presenting Officer should be appointed but if the Inquiry Officer plays the role of Presenting Officer, the inquiry would be invalid. Following was held in paragraphs 8 and 9:
"8. One other ground on which the domestic inquiry was held invalid was that Presenting Officer was not appointed. This view of the Tribunal is also patently untenable. There is no legal compulsion that Presenting Officer should be appointed. Therefore, the mere fact that the Presenting Officer was not appointed is no ground to set aside the inquiry (See : Gopalakrishna Reddy v. State of Karnataka). It is true that in the absence of Presenting Officer if the Inquiring Authority plays the role of the Presenting Officer, the inquiry would be invalid and this aspect arises out of the next point raised for the petitioner, which I shall consider immediately hereafter.
9. The third ground on which the Industrial Tribunal held that the domestic inquiry was invalid was that the Inquiry Officer had played the role of the Presenting Officer.The relevant part of the findings reads :
"The Learned Counsel for the workman further contended that the questions put by the Enquiry Officer to the Management's witnesses themselves suggest that he was biased and prejudiced against the workman. There has been no explanation as to why no Presenting Officer was appointed and as to why the Enquiry Officer took upon himself the burden of putting questions to the Management witnesses. The enquiry proceedings at Ext. A-6 disclose that after the cross-examination of the Management's witnesses by the defence, the Enquiry Officer has further put certain questions by way of explanation, but from their nature an inference arises that they are directed to fill in the lacuna. The Learned Counsel for the Page No.# 9/16 Management contended that the Enquiry Officer has followed the principles of natural justice and that the domestic enquiry is quite valid. I am of the view that the fact that the Enquiry Officer has himself taken up the role of the Presenting Officer for the management goes to the root of the matter and vitiates the enquiry,"
As far as position in law is concerned, it is common ground that if the Inquiring Authority plays the role of a Prosecutor and cross-examines defence witnesses or puts leading questions to the prosecution witnesses clearly exposing a biased state of mind, the inquiry would be opposed to principles of natural justice. But the question for consideration in this case is : Whether the Inquiry Officer did so ? It is also settled law that an Inquiring Authority is entitled to put questions to the witnesses for clarification wherever it becomes necessary and so long the delinquent employee is permitted to cross-examine the witnesses after the Inquiring Authority questions the witnesses, the inquiry proceedings cannot be impeached as unfair. See : Munchandani Electric and Radio Industries Ltd. Vs. Workman."
30. This Court had occasion to observe in Workmen of Lambabari Tea Estate, that if Inquiry Officer did not keep his function as Inquiry Officer but becomes prosecutor, the inquiry is vitiated. Following was observed:
"The inquiry which was held by the management on the first charge was presided over by the manager himself. It was conducted in the presence of the assistant manager and two others. The enquiry was not correct in its procedure. The manager recorded the statements, cross-examined the labourers who were the offenders and made and recorded his own statements on facts and questioned the offending labourers about the truth of his own statements recorded by himself. The manager did not keep his function as the enquiring officer distinct but became witness, prosecutor and manager in turns. The record of the enquiry as a result is staccato and unsatisfactory."
31. A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court speaking through Justice R.V. Raveendran, CJ (as he then was) had occasion to consider the question of vitiation of the inquiry when the Inquiry Officer starts himself acting as prosecutor in Union of India and Ors. Vs. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui. In the above case the Court considered Rule 9(9)(c) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. The Division Bench while elaborating fundamental principles of natural justice enumerated the seven well recognised facets in paragraph 7 of the judgment which is to the following effect:
"7. One of the fundamental principles of natural justice is that no man shall be a judge in his own cause. This principle consists of seven well recognised facets:
Page No.# 10/16
(i) The adjudicator shall be impartial and free from bias,
(ii) The adjudicator shall not be the prosecutor,
(iii) The complainant shall not be an adjudicator,
(iv) A witness cannot be the Adjudicator,
(v) The Adjudicator must not import his personal knowledge of the facts of the case while inquiring into charges,
(vi) The Adjudicator shall not decide on the dictates of his Superiors or others,
(vii) The Adjudicator shall decide the issue with reference to material on record and not reference to extraneous material or on extraneous considerations. If any one of these fundamental rules is breached, the inquiry will be vitiated."
32. The Division Bench further held that where the Inquiry Officer acts as Presenting Officer, bias can be presumed. In paragraph 9 is as follows:
"9. A domestic inquiry must be held by an unbiased person who is unconnected with the incident so that he can be impartial and objective in deciding the subject matters of inquiry. He should have an open mind till the inquiry is completed and should neither act with bias nor give an impression of bias. Where the Inquiry Officer acts as the Presenting Officer, bias can be presumed. At all events, it clearly gives an impression of bias. An Inquiry Officer is in position of a Judge or Adjudicator. The Presenting Officer is in the position of a Prosecutor. If the Inquiry Officer acts as a Presenting Officer, then it would amount to Judge acting as the prosecutor. When the Inquiry Officer conducts the examination-in- chief of the prosecution witnesses and leads them through the facts so as to present the case of the disciplinary authority against the employee or cross- examines the delinquent employee or his witnesses to establish the case of the employer/disciplinary authority evidently, the Inquiry Officer cannot be said to have an open mind. The very fact that he presents the case of the employer and supports the case of the employer is sufficient to hold that the Inquiry Officer does not have an open mind."
33. The Division Bench after elaborately considering the issue summarised the principles in paragraph 16 which is to the following effect:
"16. We may summarise the principles thus:
(i) The Inquiry Officer, who is in the position of a Judge shall not act as a Presenting Officer, who is in the position of a prosecutor.
(ii) It is not necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to appoint a Presenting Officer in each and every inquiry. Non- appointment of a Presenting Officer, by itself will not vitiate the inquiry.
Page No.# 11/16
(iii) The Inquiry Officer, with a view to arrive at the truth or to obtain clarifications, can put questions to the prosecution witnesses as also the defence witnesses. In the absence of a Presenting Officer, if the Inquiry Officer puts any questions to the prosecution witnesses to elicit the facts, he should thereafter permit the delinquent employee to cross-examine such witnesses on those clarifications.
(iv) If the Inquiry Officer conducts a regular examination-in-chief by leading the prosecution witnesses through the prosecution case, or puts leading questions to the departmental witnesses pregnant with answers, or cross-examines the defence witnesses or puts suggestive questions to establish the prosecution case employee, the Inquiry Officer acts as prosecutor thereby vitiating the inquiry.
(v) As absence of a Presenting Officer by itself will not vitiate the inquiry and it is recognised that the Inquiry Officer can put questions to any or all witnesses to elicit the truth, the question whether an Inquiry Officer acted as a Presenting Officer, will have to be decided with reference to the manner in which the evidence is let in and recorded in the inquiry. Whether an Inquiry Officer has merely acted only as an Inquiry Officer or has also acted as a Presenting Officer depends on the facts of each case. To avoid any allegations of bias and running the risk of inquiry being declared as illegal and vitiated, the present trend appears to be to invariably appoint Presenting Officers, except in simple cases. Be that as it may."
34. We fully endorse the principles as enumerated above, however, the principles have to be carefully applied in facts situation of a particular case. There is no requirement of appointment of Presenting Officer in each and every case, whether statutory rules enable the authorities to make an appointment or are silent. When the statutory rules are silent with regard to the applicability of any facet of principles of natural justice the applicability of principles of natural justice which are not specifically excluded in the statutory scheme are not prohibited. When there is no express exclusion of particular principle of natural justice, the said principle shall be applicable in a given case to advance the cause of justice......................."
14. Accordingly, in the light of the said decision in the case of Ram Lakhan Sharma (Supra), this Court finds that the principles of natural justice in the matter was violated on account of non-appointment of a Presenting Officer in the matter. Accordingly, a prejudice is found to have suffered by the petitioner in the matter.
15. With regard to the challenge presented to the enquiry report by the learned Page No.# 12/16 counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry preceding issuance of the impugned order dated 16-10-2014 stood vitiated on the ground that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, this Court on perusal of the original enquiry record, as furnished by the learned Sr. counsel for the respondent, finds that the witnesses were so examined in presence of the petitioner and his signature was also taken on the deposition so made by each of the witnesses. It is further recorded in the deposition of the witnesses that the delinquent had declined to cross-examine the said witnesses. The said position coming on record, this Court is of the considered view that the said plea taken by the learned counsel petitioner would not mandate a consideration, inasmuch as, it is seen that an opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses was afforded to the petitioner and it was also recorded in respect of each of the witnesses that the petitioner had declined to cross-examine the witnesses and the petitioner had duly signed on each of the such depositions recorded of the witnesses, without any objection.
Accordingly, the said plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner stands rejected.
16. Having drawn the said conclusion, this Court would now examine as to whether any prejudice was caused to the petitioner on account of non-furnishing of copy of the enquiry report before passing of the impugned order dated 16-10-2014. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the decision of Gunakanta Tamuli Vs. State of Assam (judgment and order dated 03-12-2014 in W.P.(C) No. 6261/2012 ) had drawn the following conclusions:-
"26. The aspect relating to furnishing of a copy of the enquiry report after imposition of penalty may now be adverted to. Article 311 of the Constitution of India deals with dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil Page No.# 13/16 capacities under the Union or a State. Clause-2 provides that no such person shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an enquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reason able opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. As per the proviso, in the event, such penalty is proposed to be imposed, it should be on the basis of the evidence adduced during such enquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed. Article 311 (2) as it stands now was substantially amended by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976. Prior to the 1976 Amendment, Article 311 (2) provide d that opportunity of hearing had to be given to the delinquent at 2 (two) stages, i.e., at the stage of enquiry into the charges and then before imposition of punishment on the basis of findings at the enquiry. The 1976 Amendment eliminate d the provision providing for second opportunity of hearing before imposition of punishment. There was some difference of judicial opinion on the question of opportunity of hearing before imposition of penalty following the 1976 Amendment, more particularly, on the question of consequence of non-supply of the enquiry report to the delinquent employee. In Union of India -Vs- Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588, a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that whenever the Enquiry Officer is other than the Disciplinary Authority and the report of the Enquiry Officer holds the employee guilty of all or any of the charges, the delinquent employee is entitled to a copy of the enquiry report to enable him to make a representation to the disciplinary authority against the report. Non-furnishing of the enquiry report amounts to violation of the rules of natural justice.
27. The question as to whether the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer, who is appointed by the Disciplinary Authority to hold the enquiry into the charges against the delinquent employee is required to be furnished to the employee to enable him to make proper representation to the Disciplinary Authority before such authority arrives at its own final decision with regard to the guilt or otherwise of the employee and the punishment proposed was referred to the Constitution Bench in the case of Managing Director, ECIL -Vs- B Karunakar, ( 1993) 4 SCC 727. The reference was made in view of what was thought to be conflicting decisions in Ramzan Khan (supra) and Kailash Chander Asthana -Vs- State of U.P., (1988) 3 SCC 600. The question as referred to above has since been authoritatively settled by the Constitution Bench in Managing Director, ECIL (supra). It has been held that when the Enquiry Officer is not the Disciplinary Authority, the delinquent employee has a right to receive a copy of the Enquiry Officer's report before the Disciplinary Authority arrives at the conclusion with regard to guilt or innocence of the employee and imposition of penalty. That right has been held to be a part of the Page No.# 14/16 employee's right to defend himself against the charges leveled against him. It is clearly held that denial of the Enquiry Officer's report before the Disciplinary Authority takes its decision on the charges, is a denial of reasonable opportunity to the employee to prove his innocence and is a breach of the principles of natural justice. However, the Constitution Bench had put in a word of caution not to apply this principle in a mechanical manner while quashing the penalties imposed on the above ground and directing re-instatement with back-wages. Courts and Tribunals would have to examine whether prejudice was caused to the employee or not on account of non -furnishing of the enquiry report, but that is an aspect, which would require consideration on the facts and circumstances of each case. The penalty of compulsory retirement is a major penalty and the ratio laid down in Managing Director, ECIL (supra), will be applicable in the event of imposition of such penalty. Coming to the facts of this case, it has already been noticed that copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner only after imposition of penalty. The enquiry report has already been discussed above. The enquiry report suffers from gross procedural infirmities striking at the very foundation of the findings recorded. Had the copy of the enquiry report been furnished to the petitioner prior to passing of the order of penalty, the petitioner could have certainly brought these aspects to the notice of the Disciplinary Authority. But the same could not be done because of non-supply of the enquiry report. To that extent, the petitioner has suffered great prejudice."
17. Applying the said decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court to the facts of this case, this Court finds that in the present case also the petitioner was imposed with major penalty of withholding the 03 (three) Annual Increments with cumulative effect and accordingly, it was mandatory on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to furnish to the petitioner a copy of the enquiry report before considering the penalty that was required to be so imposed upon the petitioner. The non-furnishing of the enquiry report to the petitioner has resulted in a prejudice being caused to him and accordingly, on this count also the impugned order of penalty dated 16-10-2014 would mandate an interference from this Court.
18. In view of the conclusions reached by this Court, the order dated 16-10-2014 Page No.# 15/16 stands set aside.
19. Considering the nature of the charges framed against the petitioner, although the petitioner was a member of a disciplined force, this Court cannot loose sight of that fact that the petitioner is entitled to a fair hearing, which is manifest under Rule 9 of the 1964 Rules as well as the law laid down in the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The departmental proceeding drawn up against the petitioner was required to be conducted in accordance with law which unfortunately had not been done in the present case. The impugned order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and also in violation of the procedure laid down under Rule 9 of the 1964 Rules.
20. Having interfered with the penalty imposed upon the petitioner, this Court also appreciates the fact that the said penalty was imposed upon the petitioner on 16-10-2014 and around more than 11 (eleven) years have lapsed since the date of imposition of the penalty. Accordingly, this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where a de-novo enquiry against the petitioner is required to be so directed.
21. Accordingly, in view of the above discussions reached by this Court, this Court directs the respondent authorities to re-authorise the 03 (three) annual increments deducted from the petitioner and thereafter, to re-compute his pay and allowances by reckoning the said 03 (three) annual increments and to release to the petitioner the arrears, thereof. The arrears so computed be released to the petitioner within a period of 03 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Page No.# 16/16
22. The records as produced by the State counsel be returned forthwith, with due acknowledgement.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant Gobind Digitally signed by Gobinda Prasad Sarma DN: c=IN, o=Personal, postalCode=781026, l=Kamrup Metro, st=Assam, street=HOUSE NO 396 BIRKUCHI, Birkuchi No.2, Chandrapur Assam India 781026 OPPOSITE a Prasad RAGHUNATH CHOUDHURY HINDI SCHOOL, title=2165, 2.5.4.20=6928da6102aa078c3f0a167d2edfd 91fb1b69cf5496e925e109d715bae326785, serialNumber=69de98d4f8795174293359cc Sarma 3e5ab3a2480fc7e847f928726a048502c9ebc f15, [email protected], cn=Gobinda Prasad Sarma Date: 2026.05.07 15:16:58 +05'30'