Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 3268 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 18 February, 2025

Author: Devashis Baruah

Bench: Devashis Baruah

                                                                        Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010218782021




                                                                  2025:GAU-AS:1827

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

                                 Case No. : WP(C)/7101/2021

            KARABI PATOWARY BARMAN
            W/O SRI MRINAL BARMAN
            RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAMATA, PS BELSOR, DIST NALBARI, ASSAM



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
            REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
            DEPARTMENT OF LAW, DISPUR

            2:THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
             GAUHATI HIGH COURT
             GUWAHATI
            ASSAM

            3:THE DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE

             NALBARI.

            4:THE ENQUIRY OFFICER

             CUM CIVIL JUDGE AND ASSISTANT SESSION JUDGE
             NALBARI

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR D CHOUDHURY, MR. P J DAS,MR N RAY,MR S DIFUSA

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, G.H.C
                                                               Page No.# 2/7

     Linked Case : WP(C)/7425/2022

    LACHIT DEKA
    S/O- LATE MITHARAM DEKA
    R/O- VILL. AND P.O. SARTHEBARI
    DIST. BARPETA-781307.


     VERSUS

    THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
    REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
    DEPARTMENT OF LAW
    DISPUR.

    2:THE REGISTRAR GENERAL

    GAUHATI HIGH COURT
    GUWAHATI
    ASSAM.

    3:THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
    NALBARI.

    4:THE INQUIRY OFFICER
    CUM CIVIL JUDGE AND ASSTT. SESSIONS JUDGE
    NALBARI.
    ------------

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

Advocates for the petitioner(s) : Mr. D Choudhury Mr. S Difusa Mr. N Ray

Advocates for the respondent(s) : Mr. HK Das Standing Counsel Gauhati High Court Mr. NK Sarma

Date of hearing & judgment : 18.02.2025 Page No.# 3/7

JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)

Heard Mr. D Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the writ petitions. Mr. HK Das, the learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court appears on behalf of the respondents in both the writ petitions.

2. Both the writ petitions are taken up together for adjudication taking into account that it is in respect to the same incident wherein two disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioners.

3. From the materials on record, the question which arises in the instant proceedings is as to whether this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution should interfere with the imposition of penalty by the Disciplinary Authority. To adjudicate the said question, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of both the writ petitions.

4. The petitioner in WP(C)No.7101/2021 was the In-charge, Bench Assistant and the writ petitioner in WP(C)No.7425/2022 was the Peon. On the fateful day, a record being PRC Case No.43/2019 went missing from the Court of the learned Munsiff No.2-Cum-JMFC, Nalbari. Pursuant thereto, a show cause notices were issued to the writ petitioners in both the writ petitions on 18.12.2019 as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be drawn up against the petitioners in both the writ petitions. The petitioners in both the writ petitions submitted their reply to the show cause notices. Subsequent thereto, a preliminary enquiry was carried out by the Munsiff No.2-Cum-JMFC Nalbari and Page No.# 4/7

a report was submitted on 03.12.2019, wherein it was opined that the petitioners in both the writ petitions were responsible for missing of the record pertaining to PRC Case No.43/2019. On the basis of the said preliminary enquiry report, the petitioners in both the writ petitions were issued the Memorandum of Charges in terms with Rule 9(2) of the Assam Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (for short, the Rules of 1964). Along with the said Memorandum of Charges, the Statement of Allegation, List of Witnesses, as well as the Preliminary Enquiry Report were also furnished. The petitioners in both the writ petitions were asked to submit their written statement within 7(seven) days from the date of the communication, giving the list of witnesses and if the petitioners wanted to carry out any inspection then within 7(seven) days from the date of the inspection. The petitioners in both the writ petitions, thereupon, submitted their replies to the Memorandum of Charges.

5. It is pertinent to mention herein that in both the replies, it is the categorical admission of the petitioners in both the writ petitions that they were handling five records which included the records of PRC Case No.43/2019. Thereafter, an enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the set of allegations against the petitioners in both the writ petitions separately. It is seen that the petitioners in both the writ petitions were afforded opportunity to engage their representatives to assist them in the departmental proceedings. Subsequent thereto, the enquiry officer submitted two reports dated 18.11.2020 opining that the charges so leveled against the petitioners in both the writ petitions were proved and the petitioners in both the writ petitions were guilty of the charges framed against them. Subsequent thereto, the disciplinary authority, who is the District and Sessions Judge, Nalbari issued respective show Page No.# 5/7

cause notices upon the petitioners in both the writ petitions which were accompanied by the respective enquiry reports. The petitioners in both the writ petitions thereupon submitted their reply to the show cause notices and pursuant thereto by Order No. 29 dated 02.02.2021 in respect of the petitioner in WP(C)No.7425/2022 penalty was imposed under Rule 7(ii) of the Rules of 1964 of withholding three increments which shall come into force immediately with cumulative effect and would continue till the remaining part of the service. In respect of the petitioner in WP(C)No.7101/2021 vide Order No.30 dated 02.02.2021, the same penalty was imposed. It is under such circumstances, both the writ petitions were filed.

6. It is seen that pursuant to the filing of the instant writ petition, this Court had issued notice vide orders dated 21.12.2021. Thereupon, the record shows that separate affidavit-in-oppositions had been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 in both the writ petitions. A perusal of the affidavit-in-oppositions shows that the said respondents had supported the penalty so imposed upon the writ petitioners in both the writ petitions. It was further mentioned that in the present facts and circumstances of the case, this Court ought not exercise its powers of judicial review in the instant proceedings, inasmuch as there was no lapses on the part of the disciplinary authority. To the said affidavit-in- opposition, there is an affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioners in both the writ petitions.

7. In the backdrop of the above, this Court had duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as the respondents and had given its anxious consideration to the respective submissions.

Page No.# 6/7

8. The materials on record upon being perused shows that the disciplinary authority had carried out the said departmental proceedings in the manner prescribed in terms with Rule 9 of the Rules of 1964. It is a well settled principle of law that the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts and the scope of a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution is only to see as to whether there is any infraction in the decision making process. The findings of fact so arrived at by the Enquiry Officer have been duly perused. Apparently there is nothing to show that there had been any perversity in the same findings. It is further seen from the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer in both the proceedings that the petitioners in both the writ petitions were responsible for the missing of the records of PRC Case No.43/2019. It is further seen that the disciplinary authority pursuant to the enquiry made, gave due opportunity by issuing show cause notices to the petitioners in both the writ petitions, along with the respective enquiry reports. The disciplinary authority having duly taken note of the reply to the second show cause notices had issued the respective orders of penalty. The penalty which had been imposed also is a minor penalty in terms with the Rules of 1964, though in the order it had been mentioned to be a major.

9. This Court finds it relevant now to take note of a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State bank of India Vs. AGD Reddy reported in (2023) 14 SCC 391, wherein the Supreme Court had dealt with the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings. The Supreme Court in the said judgment after duly taking note of the various judgments opined that the scope of judicial review against a departmental proceedings is very limited, inasmuch as a proceedings of judicial review is not in the nature of an appeal and a Page No.# 7/7

review on merits of the decision is not permissible. It was further opined that the scope of the enquiry is only to examine whether the decision making process was legitimate and to ensure that the findings are not bereft of any evidence. The Supreme Court further mentioned that if the records reveal that the findings are based on some evidence, it is not the function of the Court in a judicial review to re-appreciate the same and arrive at an independent finding on evidence.

10. Taking into account the scope of a judicial review proceedings as delineated by the Supreme Court in the case of AGD Reddy (supra) and applying the same to the facts of the instant case, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned orders of penalty imposed upon the petitioners being Order No. 29 dated 02.02.2021 in respect of the petitioner in WP(C)No.7425/2022 as well as the Order No.30 dated 02.02.2021 in respect of the petitioner in WP(C)No.7101/2021. Consequently, the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant