[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Sahab Uddin Choudhury vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 7 April, 2026
Author: Soumitra Saikia
Bench: Soumitra Saikia
Page No.# 1/9
GAHC010072262026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2045/2026
SAHAB UDDIN CHOUDHURY
S/O ABDUL SUKKUR CHOUDHURY, R/O KOROIKANDI, P.O AND P.S-
KATIGORAH, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 06
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER AND CHAIRMAN
DISTRICT HEALTH SOCIETY
SRIBHUMI
ASSAM
PIN- 788710
3:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006
4:THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES(FW)
SWASTHYA BHAWAN
ASSAM
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI- 781036
5:THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES
SRIBHUMI
ASSAM
PIN- 788710
Page No.# 2/9
6:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER (FW)
SRIBHUMI
ASSAM
PIN- 788710
7:MADHUMITA CHANDA
W/O SRI BIPLAB KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE
R/O OF HOUSE NO. 53
LONGAI ROAD
WARD NO. 2
P.O- SETTLEMENT ROAD
SRIBHUMI
ASSAM
PIN- 78871
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S BANIK, MR. A K TALUKDAR,MR S ISLAM
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HEALTH, MR N A MAZARBHUIYA (FOR CAVEATOR)
Linked Case : WP(C)/2046/2026
SAHAB UDDIN CHOUDHURY
S/O- ABDUL SUKKUR CHOUDHURY.
R/O- KOROIKANDI
P.O.- AND P.S.- KATIGORAH
DIST.-CACHAR
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER AND CHAIRMAN
DISTRICT HEALTH SOCIETY
SRIBHUMI
ASSAM
Page No.# 3/9
PIN- 788710
3:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006.
4:THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES (FW)
SWASTHYA BHAWAN
ASSAM
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI-781036.
5:THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES
SRIBHUMI
ASSAM
PIN- 788710
6:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER (FW)
SRIBHUMI
ASSAM
PIN- 788710
7:SMT. MADHUMITA CHANDA
W/O- SRI BIPLAB KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE.
R/O- H.NO.53
LONGAI ROAD
WARD NO.2
P.O.- SETTLEMENT ROAD
SRIBHUMI
ASSAM
788712.
------------
Advocate for : MR. A K TALUKDAR
Advocate for : SC
HEALTH appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
07.04.2026
Heard Mr. S Banik, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. DP
Page No.# 4/9
Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Health Department for the respondents no. 1,
3, 4, 5 & 6 and Ms. S Baruah, learned State Counsel, Assam for the respondent
no.2 and Mr. AR Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent no.7.
2. Since both these writ petitions arise out of the same cause of action, they
are being taken up together for consideration.
3. The petitioner before the Court is presently serving as a U.D. Assistant in
the Office of the Additional Chief Medical and health Officer (FW), Sribhumi
under the Department of Health. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned
speaking orders dated 31-03-2026 and 01.04.2026. Against the petitioner, the
Private Respondent no. 7 had filed an allegation of sexual harassment and for
which the proceedings by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) was initially
instituted. However, the ICC enquiry did not result any definitive finding because
of lack of evidence and the matter was referred to the District Authority, State
Administrative Department.
4. The Administrative Department meanwhile instituted a Departmental
Proceedings under the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 and
the proceedings of which are presently under stay in the writ petition filed by
the petitioner being WP(C) No. 6765 of 2025. The petitioner was also
suspended pending Departmental Proceedings and he had approached this
Page No.# 5/9
Court by filing WP(C) No. 4916 of 2025 and the order of suspension was
interfered with by judgment and order dated 17-12-2025. And the Respondents
were directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith. In deference to the said
order passed, the Respondent authorities by an order dated 02-03-2026
whereby the petitioner was reinstated and transferred to the office of the
Additional Chief Medical and Health Officer, Golaghat.
5. The order dated 02-03-2026 was again challenged in WP(C) No. 1495 of
2026 and this Court by order dated 16-03-2026 disposed of the said writ
petition directing the Respondent authorities to look into the grievances of the
writ petitioner in terms of the representation dated 06-03-2026 and passed an
appropriate order requesting for a transfer to a nearby district. While disposing
of the said writ petition, the complainant who was represented by the learned
counsel filed an Interlocutory Application seeking her impleadment in the said
writ petition and this Court had permitted to raise her objection before the
Authorities.
6. In deference to the said order, the speaking order dated 01.04.2026 has
been passed by the Respondent authorities, whereby the grievances of the
petitioner vis-a-vis the objections raised by the Private Respondent were duly
considered and the authorities rejected the representation dated 06-03-2026
Page No.# 6/9
filed by the petitioner and the order dated 02-03-2026 was sustained, whereby
the petitioner was reinstated and transferred to Golaghat was sustained.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this order dated 01.04.2026 that
this impugned order needs to be interfered with as the petitioner is suffering
from health ailments and he is superannuating in the month of November, 2026.
According to the petitioner, he has indicated in his representation that vacancies
are available in nearby districts where he could have been accommodating.
However, the Respondent authorities have rejected the claim of the petitioner
by passing the impugned order dated 01.04.2026.
7. In WP(C) No.2046/2026, the petitioner is assailing the order dated
31.03.2026, whereby the Director of Health Services (FW) has ordered for a
fresh enquiry by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), in accordance with
the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women and Workplace (Prevention,
Prohibition and Redressal) Act, of 2013. The Committee so constituted will
record a clear finding upon completion of the enquiry.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this impugned order dated
31.03.2026, ordering for a de novo enquiry by the ICC is contrary to the
provisions of the Act of 2013, read with the rules.
9. That apart, the complainant, namely, the private respondent no.7, never
Page No.# 7/9
raised any objection in respect of the first report of the ICC, whereby the ICC
did not submit any clear findings against the petitioner for lack of evidence.
10. Mr. DP Borah, learned Standing Counsel for the Health Department,
submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned orders dated 31.03.2026 and
01.04.2026, as it is clearly observed that by order dated 06-03-2026, passed in
WP(C) No.1495/2026, the objections and apprehensions expressed by the
private respondent no.7 was also duly considered, and the authority has
correctly applied its mind and has come to a finding by the impugned order
dated 01.04.2026 that the apprehension expressed by the private Respondent
regarding the possibility of influence or interference of the enquiry proposed by
the petitioner cannot be held to be unfounded in the facts and circumstances of
the case, and therefore, the authority thought it fit to pass the order rejecting
the claim of the petitioner requesting for transfer to a nearby district. The
authorities have also found that the claims of the ailments of the petitioner are
not supported by adequate documents. It is also found by the authorities that
the petitioner is an office-bearer of the Employees' Association, and therefore,
may have the effect of influencing the witnesses who may be called upon by the
ICC for the de novo enquiry which is proposed pursuant to the earlier order
dated 31-3-2026.
Page No.# 8/9
11. Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing to the private respondent
no.7, submits that the allegations against the petitioner are very serious, and
therefore, the authorities have rightly transferred him to the district of Golaghat,
so that he will have no influence over any of the witnesses employed in the
district of Sribhumi in the proposed de novo enquiry which is sought to be
initiated in terms of the order dated 31-03-2026. Mr. Bhuyan further submits
that because of non-participation of the petitioner in the earlier round of enquiry
held by the ICC, the enquiry had to be closed as there was no evidence coming
from the petitioner because of his lack of participation. He therefore submits
that no interference at this stage is call for and the respondents be permitted to
file the counter-affidavit opposing the claims made by the petitioner.
12. Having heard the counsel for the parties, let notice be issued, returnable
on 24.04.2026.
Since all the respondents are represented by their respective counsel,
Notices are waived. However, extra copies be furnished to them within 1 (one)
week from today, if not already done.
The respondents may complete their instructions and file affidavits.
13. The matter be listed again on 24.04.2026.
14. Prayer for interim order will be considered on the next returnable date.
Page No.# 9/9
15. In the event the Department proceeds in the de novo enquiry as directed
by the order dated 31-03-2024 issued by the Director of Health Services (FW),
no final orders will be passed in the said enquiry till the next returnable date.
16. Considering the issues involved, let these writ petition be listed along with
WP(C) No.6765/2025.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
