Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/7 vs Sabjan Begum on 24 November, 2025
Author: M. Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010226832025
2025:GAU-AS:15904-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6004/2025
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY
OF COMMUNICATION, DEPARTMENT OF POST, NEW DELHI-110001
2: THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL
ASSAM CIRCLE
MEGHDOOT BHAWAN
PANBAZAR
GUWAHATI-781001
3: THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES
DARRANG DIVISION
TEZPUR-784001
4: THE INSPECTOR OF POSTS
MANGALDOI SUB-DIVISION CUM PRESENTING OFFICER
MANGALDOI- 784125
5: THE INQUIRY AUTHORITY AND INSPECTOR OF POSTS
DHEKIAJULI SUB DIVISION
DHEKIAJULI-78411
VERSUS
SABJAN BEGUM
D/O LATE AMIR MIAH, W/O NURUDDIN AHMED, R/O VILL- KHATANIA
PARA, P.O AND P.S- DHULA, DIST- DARRANG, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K MEDHI,
Advocate for the Respondent : K RAHMAN (FOR CAVEATOR), MR. SAIDUL ALOM (FOR
CAVEATOR)
Page No.# 2/7
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
ORDER
24.11.2025
(M. Zothankhuma, J)
Heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants Union of
India and Mr. K. Rahman, learned counsel for the sole respondent/caveator, who
has been removed from service vide a departmental proceeding.
2. The appellants are aggrieved with the impugned order dated 23.05.2025
passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in
Original Application No.040/96/2021, by which the order dated 01.04.2019
removing the respondent from service and the letter dated 30.09.2019 issued
by the appellants, rejecting the request of the respondent to reinstate her into
service, had been set aside and quashed.
3. The facts of the case is that the respondent had been suspended on
account of non-crediting recurring deposits, while she was working as an Extra
Departmental Branch Post Master (EDBPM) at Khagrabari Branch Post Office.
4. Due to shortage of cash in the office, on the above issue, a criminal case
was registered against the respondent vide Paneri P.S. Case No.131/2009 (GDE
No.97 dated 06.07.2009). After G.R. Case No.1179/2012 was registered against
the respondent, charge-sheet was submitted under Section 420 IPC. The Court
of the learned SDJM(S), Udalguri, BTAD, thereafter acquitted the respondent
from the charge framed against her under Section 420 of IPC, by giving her the
Page No.# 3/7
benefit of doubt.
5. Thereafter, the appellants submitted a Memorandum of Charge dated
24.07.2017 along with a Corrigendum dated 02.08.2017 in respect of the
departmental proceedings that had been initiated against the respondent, for
having office cash shortage amounting to Rs.5,917.60/-, not crediting the 6 SB
account deposits in the respective passbooks and into the government accounts
amounting to Rs.7,050/- and also for not crediting the deposits in respect of 10
RD accounts.
6. The respondent submitted her Written Statement of Defence against the
Memorandum of Charge issued by the appellants. The respondent thereafter put
to challenge the Memorandum of Charge dated 24.07.2017 before the CAT,
Guwahati Bench vide Original Application No.040/00065/ 2018. The respondent
also prayed for payment of arrear salaries. The CAT, Guwahati Bench, thereafter
vide order dated 28.09.2018, directed the appellants to conclude the
departmental proceedings against the respondent, within a period of 2 months
and to release subsistence allowance to the respondent, as per the rules.
7. The appellants thereafter concluded the departmental proceedings initiated
against the respondent vide order dated 01.04.2019, by holding that the
charges framed against the respondent had been proved and inflicted the
punishment of removal from engagement, which would not be a disqualification
for future employment.
8. A copy of the enquiry report was thereafter forwarded to the respondent
for submission of her representation on the Enquiry Officer's report. However,
Page No.# 4/7
the respondent did not submit any representation against the enquiry report.
9. The respondent thereafter put a challenge to the impugned order dated
01.04.2019 before the CAT, Guwahati Bench vide Original Application
No.040/96/2021. The learned Tribunal, vide the impugned order dated
23.05.2025 disposed of Original Application No.040/96/2021, by setting aside
the impugned order of removal dated 01.04.2019 and the order dated
30.09.2019, by which the appellants had rejected the respondent's application
for reinstatement into service. The reason for setting aside the above order
dated 01.04.2019 and letter dated 30.09.2019 is reflected in para 6 of the order
dated 23.05.2025, which is as follows:
"We have also gone the appointment letter issued to the applicant by the
Superintendent of Post Offices, Darrang Division, Tezpur on 28.08.1985 and
since then, she was discharging her duties. However, Vide Order dated
20.09.2006, applicant was put off duty due to kept shortage in Office cash but
she was served with a copy of Memorandum of Charge on 24.07.2017 that is,
after 11 years. As per earlier Order dated 28.09.2018 passed by this Tribunal on
earlier round of litigation in O.A. No. 65/2018, the Departmental Proceedings
ought to have been concluded within two months but the respondent
authorities failed to comply the said Order and passed the impugned Order on
01.04.2019 i.e. after seven months whereby the applicant was awarded with
punishment of removal from engagement, which shall not be a disqualification
for future employment with immediate effect, i.e. after 13 years of her
suspension and that too after acquittal in a criminal case instituted out of the
same cause of action, which was also affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide
Order dated 30.09.2019, which in our opinion, is not sustainable."
10. As can be seen from para 6 of the impugned order, the reason for setting
aside the impugned order and letter has been made due to the fact that the
appellants had failed to comply with the order dated 28.09.2018 passed by the
Page No.# 5/7
Tribunal in O.A. No.65/2018, wherein the departmental proceedings had been
directed to be concluded within 2 months. However, the same had been
concluded after 7 months. This conclusion of the departmental proceedings had
been made 13 years after the suspension of the respondent and that too after
acquittal in a criminal case instituted out of the same cause of action. As such,
the learned Tribunal held that the removal of the respondent from service was
not sustainable, as the same was not in consonance with the acquittal of the
respondent in the criminal case.
11. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
12. As can be seen from the records and the submissions made by the
counsels for the parties, the issue to be decided is whether the decision in a
departmental proceeding has to be in the same vein as given in a criminal case.
The second issue to be looked into is whether there has been any procedural
lapse or illegality in the departmental proceedings that had been initiated
against the respondent.
13. In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Heem Singh, reported in
(2021) 12 SCC 569, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that acquittal in a
criminal case by itself cannot be a ground for interfering with an order of
punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. Order of dismissal can be
passed even if the delinquent official is acquitted of the criminal charge, unless
the accused has an honourable acquittal. In the present case, the respondent
has not been given an honourable discharge and she has been acquitted only by
giving her the benefit of doubt. Similarly, exoneration in a departmental
proceeding ipso facto would not result in exoneration or acquittal in a criminal
Page No.# 6/7
case. This has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State
(NCT of Delhi) Vs. Ajay Kumar Tyagi, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 685.
14. The above judgments of the Supreme Court clearly show that just
because the respondent was acquitted in a criminal case, it does not mean that
the respondent could not be found guilty in the departmental proceeding. The
burden of proof required in a criminal proceeding is to prove guilt beyond all
reasonable doubt, while in a departmental proceeding the authorities have to
prove preponderance of probability.
15. On perusing the documents on record, it is quite apparent that all the
technical procedures that were to be followed by the appellants have been
followed, while concluding the departmental proceedings initiated against the
respondent. In fact, the respondent has not made any representation against
the enquiry report that had been furnished to her. This has been clearly
reflected in the impugned order of removal dated 01.04.2019 at para 4, which
states as follows:
"4. A copy of the Inquiry report, submitted by the Inquiring Authority (IA)
has been forwarded through special messenger on 18.03.2019 to Smt
Sabjan Begum, the charged official for submission of her defence
representation on the IO's report. The copy of the Inquiry report was
received by Smt. Sabjan Begum, GDS BPM, Khagrabari BO in account with
Attarikhat SO on 19.03.2019. But, even then Smt. Sabjan Begum did not
submit her defence representation for the reason best known to her."
16. In view of the reasons stated above, we find no ground to sustain the
impugned order dated 23.05.2025, passed by the learned Tribunal in Original
Application No.040/96/2021, wherein the order of removal has been set aside,
Page No.# 7/7
only on the ground that the appellants had failed to comply with the order dated
28.09.2018, passed in Original Application No.040/00065/2018, i.e., though the
learned Tribunal had directed the appellants to conclude the departmental
proceedings within 2 months, the appellants had taken 7 months. Also, the
removal order had been passed 13 years after the suspension of the
respondent, that too after acquittal in a criminal case.
17. On considering the impugned order and keeping in view the decisions of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the facts of the case, we are of the view that
the impugned order is not justified and sustainable in law, inasmuch as, the
charge which had been proved against the respondent by way of the "enquiry
report", has also not been denied by the respondent. Accordingly, the impugned
order dated 23.05.2025, passed by the learned Tribunal in Original Application
No.040/96/2021 being arbitrary, is hereby set aside.
18. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
