Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs Abdul Kuddus on 17 February, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010252862024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/46/2025
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REPRESENTED BY THE LEGAL REMEMBRANCER CUM COMMISSIONER
AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.
2: THE LEGAL REMEMBRANCER CUM COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI
PIN-78100
VERSUS
ABDUL KUDDUS
SON OF LATE PESKAR ALI, RESIDENCE OF VILLAGE DOLOITOLA, P.O-
SONIADI, P.S- HAJO, DISTRICT- KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN-781102.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. MADHUCHANDRA BHATTACHARJEE, ADDL. SR. GA,
ASSAM
Advocate for the Respondent : , MR. T DEURI,MR D S DEKA,FOR CAVEATOR
BEFORE
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
ORDER
Date : 17.02.2025
(Vijay Bishnoi, CJ)
Heard Mr. Dilip Mazumdar, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam,
assisted by Ms. M. Bhattacharya, learned Addl. Senior Government
Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants. Also heard Mr. K. N.
Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Tanuz Kashyap, learned
counsel, appearing on behalf of the sole respondent.
Page No.# 2/5
This intra-Court appeal is preferred by the appellants, herein, being
aggrieved with the judgment & order, dated 12.09.2024, passed by the
learned Single Judge in WP(c)4258/2023.
The sole respondent in the said writ petition i.e. WP(c)4258/2023, has
challenged the order, dated 03.04.2021, whereby, the penalty of
compulsory retirement from service, is imposed upon him by the
appellants.
In the said writ petition, the learned Single Judge after hearing the
arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the respective parties and
after going through the materials available on record, has interfered with
the punishment order and has come to the conclusion that the punishment
imposed upon the petitioner, therein(sole respondent, herein) is
disproportionate to the misconduct, as alleged.
The learned Single Judge after setting aside the punishment order as
well as the order passed by the appellate authority, has remanded the
matter back to the disciplinary authority to pass necessary orders to
impose a lesser punishment upon the petitioner, therein, other than the
punishment of compulsory retirement from service.
Mr. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam, has submitted
that though the learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that the
petitioner, therein, is guilty of not sending the Case Diaries in the Bail
Applications on several occasions and has also admitted his omission
without offering any explanation, but, has recorded a finding that there is
Page No.# 3/5
only some degree of negligence on the part of the petitioner, therein.
Mr. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam, has further
submitted that once the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion
that the petitioner, therein, has admitted to his guilt and has also offered
no explanation, there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to
observe that there is only some degree of negligence though the facts of
the case, reveals that there is gross negligence on the part of the
petitioner, therein, as he was assigned to send the Case Diaries at the time
of hearing of the Bail Applications before the Court.
Mr. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam, has, therefore,
submitted that the learned Single Judge has exceeded his jurisdiction and
has illegally interfered with the punishment order passed by the authorities
after following the due procedure of law as well as after following the
principles of natural justice.
Per contra, Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the sole
respondent, has submitted that from the evidence available on record, it is
clear that the Department concerned has failed to bring home the
allegations of negligence and misconduct as alleged against the sole
respondent.
By referring to the statements of the prosecution witnesses of the
Department as well as the defence witnesses; Mr. Choudhury, learned
senior counsel, has further submitted that from the scrutiny of the evidence
Page No.# 4/5
available on record; it is amply clear that the charges against the sole
respondent, has not been proved.
Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, has also submitted that though
the sole respondent has not challenged the order passed by the learned
Single Judge, but, this fact can be taken note of while hearing the appeal.
Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, by placing reliance on a decision
of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Tractor & Farm
Equipment Ltd. v. Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of
Agriculture & ors., reported in (2004) 2 GLR 56, has argued that the
Division Bench of this Court has taken a view that where the view taken by
the learned Single Judge is a plausible view, normally, the Division Bench
should not interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and after
going through the materials available on record; we are of the considered
view that the matter requires consideration.
Hence, admit.
No need to issue formal notice to the parties as they are duly
represented by their respective counsels.
List it for hearing in due course.
Page No.# 5/5
In the meantime, the effect and operation of the judgment & order,
dated 12.09.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)4258/2023,
shall remain stayed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
