Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 7234 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 11 September, 2025

                                                              Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010243612023




                                                        2025:GAU-AS:12430

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

                          Case No. : WP(C)/6453/2023

         SWAHANAZ YASMIN
         DAUGHTER OF ABDUSH SWAHEED,
         RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DHUPDHARA,
         POST OFFICE- DHUPDHARA,
         POLICE STATION- DHUPDHARA,
         DISTRICT- GOALPARA, ASSAM,
         PIN- 783101.



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
         DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
         GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,
         DISPUR, GUWAHATI,
         PIN- 781006.

         2:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (NORTHERN RANGE)
         ASSAM AND APPELLATE AUTORITY

          TEZPUR
          DISTRICT- SONITPUR

         PIN- 784001.

         3:SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
          LAKHIMPUR
          NORTH LAKHIMPUR
          DIST.- LAKHIMPUR

         PIN- 787001.
                                                                          Page No.# 2/7

            4:MANOJ LAHKAR
            APS
            ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (TRAFFIC-I)

            POLICE COMMISSIONERATE
            GUWAHATI CUM ENQUIRY OFFICER

            GUWAHATI
            DISTRICT- KAMRUP

            PIN- 787001

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. T DEURI, MR D S DEKA,MS. D SONOWAL,MRS. R S
DEURI

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. S KAKATI (R4)




                                   BEFORE
                   HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR

                                         ORDER

Date : 11-09-2025

Heard Mr. T. Deuri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner who was then serving as in-charge of Borjhar Out post under Azara Police Station was issued a Memorandum of Charge dated 12.06.2020, wherein it was alleged that the petitioner had committed misconduct by allowing the Home Guard and the Driver, who were also stationed in the same Outpost, to demand and collect money from the Truck/ Dumper drivers. It was alleged that the petitioner did not take any action against those persons. On receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted her reply. The Disciplinary Authority not being satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner, a Departmental Page No.# 3/7

Enquiry was initiated against the petitioner as Departmental Proceeding no. 15/2019.

3. The petitioner participated in the Departmental Proceeding where statements of witnesses were recorded and which culminated in an Enquiry report dated 23.12.2022, by which the petitioner was found responsible for gross misconduct, but she was not found responsible for the charge of dereliction of duty. It was held that the charge of gross misconduct on the part of the charged officer was proved beyond doubt. The petitioner was thereafter served with show cause notice for the second time, which was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, being Memo No. NL(R)/DP/2023/1009 on 25.01.2023, by which the petitioner was required to show cause as to why any of the penalties prescribed in the relevant rules should not be inflicted upon the petitioner on the basis of findings submitted by the Enquiry Officer. For ready reference, the show cause notice dated 25.01.2023 is quoted herein below:

"OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE :: LAKHIMPUR :: NORTH LAKHIMPUR

Memo No. NL(R)/DP/2023/1009 Dtd: 25/01/2023. To, WSI Swahanaz Yasmin Lakhimpur DEF

Sub: 2nd Show cause notice.

Ref: Departmental Proceeding No. 15/2019 of Commissionerate of Police, City, Ghty.

You are hereby Informed that the officer appointed to enquire into the Page No.# 4/7

charge framed against you has submitted his report. A copy of report of the enquiry officer Including connected papers is enclosed herewith.

On careful consideration of the report and on perusal of the records and having regard to the evidence and circumstances appearing in the case, the undersigned agrees with the findings of enquiry officer and hold that the charges are proved beyond preponderance of probability.

You are hereby required to show cause under section 65 of Assam Police Act, 2007 R/W rule 66 of Assam Police Manual Part-III and article 311 of the constitution of India and rule 7 of Assam Service (Discipline and Appeal) rule 1964 as to why any of the penalties prescribed in the aforesald rules should not be inflicted on you on the basis of findings submitted by the Enquiry Officer. Any representation which you make in this connection will be duly considered Such representation If any should be made In writing and submitted to reach the undersigned within 10(ten) days from the date of receipt of the communication.

Enclo: As stated above.

Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur"

4. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice on 27.01.2023 and the impugned penalty order dated 30.01.2023, imposing the punishment of dropping of 1 (one) annual approved service increment without cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner on 20.02.2023 which was disposed by the order dated 22.09.2023.

5. Mr. Deori, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, without going into the merits of the process adopted by the Enquiry Officer, it would be apparent from the second show cause notice on 25.01.2023, that the Disciplinary Authority had framed its mind as to the guilt of the petitioner even before supplying the petitioner a copy of the Enquiry Report. He submits that it is a settled position of law that the Page No.# 5/7

Disciplinary Authority has to consider both the Enquiry report and the submissions made by the delinquent officer before coming to a finding with regard to the guilt or otherwise of the delinquent officer. He submits that since it is apparent that the Disciplinary authority has already framed its mind, the requirement of the petitioner to file a reply to the Inquiry report was a mere formality and did not serve any purpose.

6. He has also relied upon the judgment dated 30.07.2024 rendered in the case of Machum Ahmed Laskar Vs. State of Assam and Ors in WP(C)/9445/2019 to impress that, under very similar circumstances, the proceedings consequentiual to the Inquiry report being submitted to the disciplinary authority had been set aside by this Court. He accordingly prays for a similar relief.

7. Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner had utilized all opportunity to defend herself in the Inquiry proceeding, and she has also availed the opportunity of replying to the second show cause notice and after having being imposed the punishment, she has also availed the opportunity to prefer a Departmental appeal. The said appeal has been disposed by a speaking order rejecting the grounds taken by the petitioner in her appeal. She submits that on the basis of the proved guilt of the petitioner, this writ petition does not deserves any consideration from this Court and requires to be dismissed.

8. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the contesting parties.

Page No.# 6/7

9. The show cause notice dated 25.01.2023, which has already been reproduced herein above is worded almost similarly as the notice which was under consideration in the case of Machum Ahmed Laskar (Supra). The relevant portion of the order passed in Machum Ahmed Laskar (Supra) is reproduced herein below for ready reference:

"14. This Court on the second ground of challenge has noticed that while the enquiry report was forwarded vide the second show cause notice dated 06.05.2014, the disciplinary authority had reached a conclusion that he agrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and held the charges to be proved. The response was sought for only on the proposed penalty which was contemplated as removal from service."

10. This Court finds force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Disciplinary authority had already come to a finding that he agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer even before the Delinquent Officer had an opportunity to rebut or place his response to the Enquiry report. Without going into the merits of the other grounds raised in the writ petition, this Court deems it appropriate that the impugned notice dated 25.01.2023 requires interference since it exhibits a pre-determined mind of the Disciplinary authority.

11. Resultantly, the notice dated 25.01.2023 and all other consequential orders passed, namely the order dated 30.01.2023, which imposed a penalty on the petitioner and the order dated 22.09.2023, which dismissed the Departmental appeal filed by the petitioner are hereby set aside and quashed. However, taking into consideration the nature of the charges, the respondent authorities if so advised, can proceed and issue a fresh Page No.# 7/7

second show cause notice allowing the petitioner to respond to the said notice and, thereafter, take a decision strictly in accordance with law.

12. Since we have already noticed that the then Disciplinary Authority displayed a pre-determination of mind, it is directed that the role of Disciplinary authority, in case the respondents want to proceed in the matter, should be played by any other person competent to discharge the said role, other than the person who was the Disciplinary authority at that relevant point of time. In case the respondents want to proceed with the Inquiry, it should be concluded within a period of 2 (two) months from today.

13. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed and disposed of in terms of the directions made herein above.

14. No order as to cost.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant