Ranjit Goswami vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 1582 Gua

                                                                  Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010062152023




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : WP(C)/1676/2023

            RANJIT GOSWAMI
            S/O- LATE RAMA PRASANNA GOSWAMI, R/O- VILLAGE- SAWTALBASTI,
            P.O. ERALIGOOL, DIST.- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, PIN- 788723



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
            REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND
            DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPTT., ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR,
            ASSAM-06

            2:THE DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS AND SURVEYS
            ASSAM
             RUPNAGAR
             GUWAHATI- 32

            3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
             KARIMGANJ
            ASSAM
             PIN- 788710

            4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
             KARIMGANJ SADAR CIRCLE
             KARIMGANJ
            ASSAM
             PIN- 78871

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S K TALUKDAR

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
                                                                      Page No.# 2/4


                                   BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

                                     ORDER

Date : 21.04.2023

Heard Mr. S. K. Talukdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. I have also heard Mr. H. Sharma, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

2. This Court vide an order dated 24.03.2023 sought instructions from the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as to whether there has been compliance to the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 as well as the Office

Memorandum dated 04.02.2020 issued by the Personnel Department of the Government of Assam.

3. When the matter was listed again on 10.04.2023, the learned Standing counsels for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had submitted that the Memorandum of Charge was issued in the month of November, 2022 and the petitioner in pursuance to the said Memorandum of Charge has not submitted the reply and pursuant thereto, in terms with Rule 9(4) and Rule 9(5) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, the disciplinary authority have already appointed the Enquiry Officer as well as the Presenting Officer.

4. To the said submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner had strongly refuted the receipt of any Memorandum of Charge by the petitioner. Under such circumstances, this Court had directed the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to file an affidavit bringing on record the necessary documents as well as also indicating Page No.# 3/4

therein when the Memorandum of Charge was served upon the petitioner. This Court further directed that the affidavit be filed by 19.04.2023 and accordingly, fixed the matter on 21.04.2023. In spite of the said direction the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 thought it prudent enough not to file the said affidavit.

5. Today, Mr. H. Sharma, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submitted that the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have no records that the Memorandum of Charge/Charge Sheet have been served upon the petitioner.

6. During the course of hearing, this Court has enquired as to what is the Show Cause Notice which has been issued. It shocks and surprises at the contents of the Show Cause notice inasmuch as the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj who had issued Show Cause notice asked the petitioner to Show Cause as to why penalties prescribed in Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 should not be inflicted upon the petitioner. This Court is surprised that when the Rules of 1964 mandates the manner in which the departmental enquiry is to be conducted and Rule 9(2) to Rule 9(10) is clear and unambiguous stipulating what is required to be done, it baffles this Court that a person in the high office of Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj is not aware of such requirement. This Court is further flabbergasted and perplexed to see the contents of the Show Cause notice inasmuch as the punishment which the disciplinary authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner seeks to impose upon the petitioner is a punishment reserved for the Criminal Courts to impose and not by a disciplinary authority in exercise of the powers under Rules of 1964.

7. This Court further would like to take note of that the allegations so made against the petitioner as would appear from the First Information Report as well Page No.# 4/4

as the order dated 28.09.2022 in ACB P.S. Case No.34/2022 are serious. However the manner in which the disciplinary authority in the instant case have resorted to take action has the potential of nullifying such departmental proceedings which would be contrary to good governance.

8. Taking note of the above, this Court therefore directs the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj to file an affidavit to explain the above.

9. List the matter again on 03.05.2023 at 2 PM.

10. The affidavit be filed by 28.04.2023 without fail.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant