Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 27 October, 2025
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010215072025
2025:GAU-AS:14543
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/346/2025
KARABI PATOWARY BARMAN
WIFE OF SRI MRINAL BARMAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAMATA, PS
BELSOR, DISTRICT- NALBARI, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006
2:THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
GUWAHATI
ASSAM. PIN-781001
3:DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
NALBARI
4:INQUIRY OFFICER
CUM CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DIV) CUM ASSTT. SESSION JUDGE
NALBARI
Advocate for the Petitioner : FARIDA AHMED, MS F AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : , GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
Page No.# 2/4
For the Appellants :Mr. SK Ghosh, Advocate.
For the Respondents :Mr. HK Das, SC, GHC
Mr. P Saikia, GA, Assam.
Date of Hearing :27.10.2025
Date of Judgment :27.10.2025
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
(A.D.Choudhury, J)
1. We have heard Mr. S.K. Ghosh, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. H.K. Das, learned
Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4, Mr. P Saikia, learned
Government Advocate appears for respondent No.1.
2. By the impugned judgment dated 18.02.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in
WP(C) No.7101/2022, the punishment imposed upon the appellant of withholding of 3(three)
increments with cumulative effect for the remainder of her service tenure, was not interfered
with by holding that this was not in the domain of judicial review.
3. It appears that the appellant, while serving as a Bench Assistant in the Court of Munsiff No.1-
cum-Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nalbari, faced departmental proceeding with respect to an
incident on 19.11.2019, when she handed over the hajiras to the Peon Lachit Deka to place with
the respective case record.
4. The appellant was served with a charge-sheet alleging negligence in duty which led to
disappearance of Court records.
5. The disciplinary proceeding was concluded and the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated
02.02.2021 imposed the punishment of withholding of 3(three) increments of appellant with
cumulative effect for the remainder of her service tenure.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge did not consider
Page No.# 3/4
that the punishment imposed upon the appellant was too severe, considering the
misconduct/negligence of performance of duty of the appellant. Such punishment would
permanently affect her pay and pensionary benefits.
7. That apart, the learned Single Judge, it has been argued, did not take into account that there
was no deliberate inaction on the part of the appellant or was there any finding on record about
her regular reckless in handling of files. It was a solitary incident where the appellant had left
the premises only to find the record of a case missing when she returned.
8. The learned Single Judge has rightly relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State
Bank of India -Vs- AGD Reddy :: (2023) 14 SCC 391, wherein the scope of judicial review in
disciplinary proceedings have been dealt with.
9. There is no gainsaying that the scope of judicial review against a departmental proceeding is
very limited as this judicial review cannot be converted into a proceeding under appeal and,
therefore, review of the decision of the Disciplinary Authority on merits would not be
permissible.
10. The scope of Judicial Enquiry is only to examine whether the decision making process was
legitimate and also for the purposes of ensuring that the findings are not without any evidence.
If the records reveal that the findings of the Disciplinary Authority are based on some evidence,
it would not be the function of the Court in a judicial review to re-appreciate the same and
arrive at an independent finding on evidence. However, in the present case, we find that the
learned Single Judge ought to have taken note of the disproportionality of the punishment
imposed upon the appellant.
11. True it is that during judicial enquiry, a Court has to operate only within narrow limits, but if
the punishment is found to be shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct, there could be
judicial interference.
12. The earlier position of law, namely, that the adequacy of the punishment is within the domain
of the Disciplinary Authority has undergone a change. The proportionality theory of punishment
was invoked for the first time some times in the year 1983 but later the theory was well
recognized and ensconced in the cases of Ranjit Thakur -Vs- Union of India & Ors. :: (1987)
4 SCC 611 and Union of India & Anr. -Vs- G. Ganayutham :: (1997) 7 SCC 463.
13. These judgments reflect that proportionality in punishment is a facet of Article 14 of the
Page No.# 4/4
Constitution of India and requires interference by courts of law if it is outrageously
disproportionate.
14. The appellant served as Bench Assistant with no charge of being negligent in her tenure. A
solitary incident, where the record of one of the files went missing and the appellant, being the
last person, who was in-charge of the records, ought to have been seen in that perspective.
15. We have not found any finding of the Disciplinary Authority that such disappearance of the file
was because of deliberate conduct of the appellant.
16. Considering this aspect of the matter, we find that withholding of 3(three) increments with
cumulative effect, and that also for the entire tenure of service of the appellant, is on the
excessive side, severity of which stirs and goads us to set aside the impugned judgment and
order and the punishment imposed upon the appellant by the Disciplinary Authority and remit
the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for taking a fresh view on the issue of quantum of
punishment.
17. We order accordingly.
18. The decision of the Disciplinary Authority shall be taken within a period of 8(eight) weeks, to
be counted from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
19. Needless to say that the Disciplinary Authority shall give a hearing to the appellant and would
not be bound by our observations in this appeal.
20. The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
