Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/ vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 28 October, 2025
Author: M. Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/11
GAHC010031992019
2025:GAU-AS:14364
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1066/2019
UTPAL DAS
S/O- LT KARUNA KT. DAS, R/O- SANTIPUR HILL SIDE, PRAGJYOTISH PATH,
P.O. BHARALUMUKH, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, GHY- 9
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, JUDICIAL
DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6
2:THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
REP. BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL GAUHATI HIGH COURT
GHY-1
3:THE INQUIRY OFFICER
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
GAUHATI
781001
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B SARMA, MR. S BARUAH
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. T J MAHANTA,SC, GHC,MS S S HAZARIKA
(R- 2 & 3)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
ORDER
Date : 28-10-2025
(M. Zothankhuma, J)
Heard Mr. S. Baruah, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr.
Page No.# 2/11
T.J. Mahanta, learned Sr. Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 & 3 assisted by Ms.
P. Sharma. Mr. D.K. Sarmah, learned counsel appears for the respondent No.1.
2. The petitioner has put to challenge the order dated 20.03.2017 issued by
the Disciplinary Authority, by which he has been imposed with the penalty of
dismissal from the Assam Judicial Service. The petitioner has also put to
challenge the notification dated 18.09.2017, issued by the Appellate Authority,
which has upheld the Disciplinary Authority's decision terminating the petitioner
from service.
3. The petitioner's case is that he was appointed as a Grade-III Officer of the
Assam Judicial Service through a proper selection process and he joined his
service on 18.07.2014. While serving as a Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate, First
Class at Hatsingimari, he was issued show-cause-notice dated 12.07.2016,
asking him to show cause under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline &
Appeal) Rules, 1964 read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India, as to why
any of the penalties prescribed under Rule 7 of the aforesaid Rules should not
be inflicted upon him, as the charges based on the statement of imputations of
misconduct/misbehaviour amounted to the petitioner failing to maintain judicial
discipline, propriety and transparency in conduct, which was unbecoming of a
Judicial Officer, which violated the provisions of Clauses 2 and 3 of Appendix-A
of the Assam Judicial Service Rules, 2003.
4. The charge framed against the petitioner, vide the show-cause-notice
dated 12.07.2016, was that while he was working as a Munsiff-cum-Judicial
Magistrate, First Class at Hatsingimari in Dhubri district on 04.06.2016, during
office hours at about 2 p.m., the office Peon Smti. Rupa Rani Dutta left the
Page No.# 3/11
office and went to the petitioner's residence. After about half an hour, i.e, about
2:30 p.m., the petitioner also left the office and went to his residence. At about
3/3:30 p.m., local persons gheraoed the petitioner's residence and upon
insistence of the local people, the petitioner denied the presence of any lady
inside his house, even when the landlord of the residence asked the petitioner
about the presence of any woman in his residence. As the local people became
more agitated, they asked the owner of the residence to take out the girl, who
was seen to have entered the petitioner's residence from the back. Thereafter,
the SDPO and other police personnel arrived in the residence of the petitioner
and entered the house of the petitioner, in the presence of Sri Naguib Ahmed,
SDJ(M), Hatsingimari. The office Peon Smti. Rupa Rani Dutta was thereafter
found under the bed in the petitioner's residence. At that point of time, the
petitioner was wearing only a Gamocha (Assamese traditional towel) on his
waist, while holding his underwear with his right hand. Thereafter, the police
removed both the petitioner and Smti. Rupa Rani Dutta from the petitioner's
residence and took them to the Office of the S.P., Dhubri. The show-cause-
notice further stated that due to the above incident, it had transpired that on
04.06.2016, the petitioner had left the office during office hours and remained
in his residence with Smti. Rupa Rani Dutta by maintaining unexpected illicit
relationship, in spite of the fact that the petitioner was a married person, whose
family was not residing with the petitioner.
5. The petitioner was then asked to submit a written statement of defence,
as the above act of the petitioner amounted to misconduct and failure to
maintain judicial discipline, propriety and transparency in conduct, unbecoming
of a Judicial Officer.
Page No.# 4/11
6. The show-cause-notice also listed out the statement of allegations made
against the petitioner and the list of documents with which the charge framed
against the petitioner was to be proved. A list of witnesses was also annexed in
the show-cause-notice dated 12.07.2016.
7. The petitioner thereafter submitted his written statement of defence dated
05.08.2016, by simply denying all the allegations levelled against him in the
charge-sheet/show-cause-notice. Subsequent to the above facts, the disciplinary
enquiry/proceedings was started against the petitioner and the Enquiry Officer
concluded his Enquiry Report on 23.12.2016, by holding that the charge levelled
against the delinquent petitioner stood proved.
8. The petitioner was then provided a copy of the enquiry report and he was
asked to submit his comments/representation against the Enquiry Report dated
23.12.2016.
9. The petitioner thereafter submitted his comments on the Enquiry Report
vide representation dated 27.01.2017.
10. The petitioner's representation against the Enquiry Report was thereafter
gone into by the Administrative Committee in it's meeting held on 25.02.2017,
wherein it was rejected and it was resolved to impose the penalty of dismissal
upon the petitioner. The same was ratified by the Full Court meeting held on
09.03.2017. The recommendation of the Gauhati High Court to impose the
penalty of dismissal upon the petitioner was thereafter communicated to the
Disciplinary Authority, which subsequently issued the impugned notification
Page No.# 5/11
dated 20.03.2017, dismissing the petitioner from service.
11. The petitioner thereafter submitted a statutory appeal dated 04.05.2017
under Rule 15 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, on the
ground that the charge framed against the petitioner had nothing to do with the
maintenance of judicial discipline, propriety and transparency in the conduct of
a Judicial Officer and as such, the provisions of Clauses 2 and 3 of Appendix-A
of the Assam Judicial Service Rules, 2003 were not attracted. Further, the
presence of the lady Peon in the residence of the appellant did not ipso facto
reveal/prove that any unexpected/illicit relationship was existing. Further, the
presence of the lady Peon in the residence of the appellant was personal in
nature and had nothing to do with the discharge of his judicial duty in the Court
and as such, could not be said to be an improper conduct on the part of a
Judicial Officer. Further, there was no proof that there was any sexual
relationship between the lady Peon and the petitioner. As such, it prayed that
the impugned notification dated 20.03.2017 dismissing the petitioner from
service, should be set aside.
12. The appeal submitted by the petitioner on 04.05.2017 was however
rejected by the First Appellate Authority, vide notification dated 18.09.2017.
13. The petitioner's counsel submits that the rejection of the petitioner's
appeal vide notification dated 18.09.2017 by the First Appellate Authority being
cryptic in nature and without any reasons being given for rejection of the
petitioner's appeal, the same should be set aside. He further submits that the
lady Peon in question, not having been examined during the disciplinary
Page No.# 6/11
proceedings, charges could not be said to be proved against the petitioner. He
accordingly submits that the impugned order dated 20.03.2017 issued by the
Disciplinary Authority and the notification dated 18.09.2017 issued by the
Appellate Authority should be set aside.
14. Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Sr. Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 & 3
submits that there is no denial of the facts, i.e, the finding of the lady Peon
during office hours under the bed of the petitioner in his residence and the
petitioner being covered only with a Gamocha in his residence during office
hours at the same time. He submits that the above showed that the conduct of
the petitioner was undoubtedly unworthy of a Judicial Officer, inasmuch as, a
Judicial Officer would have to have only one standard, whether it be inside or
outside the Court room. In this regard, he has relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Daya Shankar Vs. High Court of
Allahabad & Ors. Through Registrar & Ors., reported in (1987) 3 SCC 1.
He further submits that the scope of judicial review of a disciplinary proceeding
by a writ Court is very limited and the writ Court is only to ensure that the
delinquent Officer received fair treatment and the procedure has been followed,
when a disciplinary enquiry is conducted. It has also to see whether the finding
of fact or conclusion is based on some evidence. As the Disciplinary Authority is
the sole Judge of facts, the adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence
cannot be permitted to be canvassed before a writ Court. He further submits
that when there is nothing perverse in the Enquiry Report and if the same does
not suffer from any patent error on the face of the record, the writ Court should
not interfere with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority. In this regard, he
has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pravin
Page No.# 7/11
Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2020) 9 SCC 471.
15. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
16. On a query made to the counsel for the writ petitioner, as to whether the
finding of fact as recorded by the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry report was
correct, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no denial
with the fact that the lady Peon was found under the bed of the petitioner and
in the residence of the petitioner during Court working hours. It was also not
denied by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was only covered by
a Gamocha inside his residence during office hours on the date of the incident.
17. In the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India, reported in (1995)
6 SCC 749, which has also been relied upon in Pravin Kumar (Supra), the
Supreme Court has held that the Disciplinary Authority is the sole Judge of
facts.
18. In the present case, there is no dispute with facts as recorded by the
Enquiry Officer in his Enquiry Report.
19. The only issue to be decided is with regard to whether a fair opportunity
had been given to the petitioner to defend himself. On considering the fact that
the petitioner had submitted his written statement of defence to the show-
cause-notice and had also given his comments to the Enquiry Report, goes to
show that there was no infirmity with the procedure followed by the Disciplinary
Authority, in giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard on the show-
Page No.# 8/11
cause-notice and all issues that had been considered in the Enquiry Report.
Further, there being no dispute with regard to facts, it is seen that not only has
there been no violation of any procedure, but also, that there has been
application of mind in coming to a decision with regard to the charges framed
against the petitioner. The issue to be decided is as to whether the act of the
appellant and the finding of the lady Peon in his house during office hours
would amount to a misconduct and whether his action resulted in the erosion of
public confidence in the petitioner as a Judicial Officer and thereby acted in a
manner unbecoming of a Judicial Officer, which violated the established judicial
norms as per Clauses 2 and 3 of Appendix-A of the Assam Judicial Service Rules,
2003, is being decided hereunder.
20. Clause 2(i) of Appendix-A of the Assam Judicial Service Rules, 2003 states
that a Judge:-
"(2) Should avoid impropriety-
(i) Public confidence in the Judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or
improper conduct by Judges. A Judge must avoid all impropriety
and appearance of impropriety. A Judge must expect to be the
subject of constant public scrutiny. A Judge must therefore accept
restrictions on conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the
ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly."
21. In the case of Daya Shankar (Supra), the Supreme Court has held in
Para 11 as follows:-
Page No.# 9/11
"11. In our opinion the conclusion reached by the Inquiry Officer that
the petitioner used unfair means is fully justified. No amount of denial
could take him away from the hard facts revealed. The conduct of the
petitioner is undoubtedly unworthy of a judicial officer. Judicial officer
cannot have two standards, one in the court and another outside the
court. They must have only one standard of rectitude, honesty and
integrity. They cannot act even remotely unworthy of the office they
occupy. The second contention urged for the petitioner also fails and is
rejected."
22. Para 112 of the Enquiry Report states as follows:-
"112. The charge of misconduct and indiscipline is to be seen and
assessed viz a viz the established judicial norms and conduct to be
maintained by a judicial officer. The established judicial norms encompass
Infinite fields; recalling a few would be beneficial.
"A judicial officer is to act honourably and in a manner befitting the
judicial office, not only in the discharge of official duties but always.
A judicial officer is to be free from fraud, deceit and falsehood and
be good and virtuous in behaviour and character. A judicial officer is
to ensure that his or her conduct is above reproach in the view of a
reasonable observer. High standards are thus to be maintained both
in private and public life. The reason being, the broad range of
human experience and conduct upon which a judicial officer may be
called upon to pronounce judgment. If a judicial officer is to
condemn publicly what he or she practises privately, the judicial
Page No.# 10/11
officer will be seen as a hypocrite, which inevitably leads to a loss of
public confidence in the judicial officer, which may rub off on the
judiciary more generally. While assessing the act of a judicial officer
it is to be assessed how a particular conduct would be perceived by
reasonable, fair minded and informed members of the community
and whether that perception is likely to diminish the community's
respect for the judicial officer or the judiciary as a whole. Universally
accepted community standards cannot be violated by a judicial
officer. The personal qualities conduct and image that a judicial
officer projects affects the judicial system as a whole and,
consequently, the confidence that the public places on it. A judge
must accept restrictions on conduct that might be viewed as
burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and
willingly." "
23. On considering the misconduct of the Officer during Court working hours
and keeping in view the decision of the Supreme Court in Daya Shankar
(Supra) along with Clause 2(i) of Appendix-A of the Assam Judicial Service
Rules, 2003, we are of the view that the act of the petitioner was unbecoming
of a Judicial Officer.
24. Though, we find that the impugned notification dated 18.09.2017 passed
by the First Appellate Authority dismissing the petitioner's appeal is cryptic in
nature, the facts of the case, as enumerated above, goes to show that the
Disciplinary Authority had acted by applying it's mind on the facts of the case,
which is not disputed by the petitioner. No procedure has been violated and he
was given an opportunity to defend himself. As there has been a reasoned
Page No.# 11/11
decision given for dismissing the petitioner from service by the Disciplinary
Authority, we are of the view that no grounds for interference with the
impugned orders have been made out.
25. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
