Safiya Malik

The Gauhati High Court Single Bench of Justice Suman Shyam has set aside the dismissal of a government official, citing procedural lapses in the disciplinary process. The court held that the penalty of dismissal was imposed without adhering to the statutory requirements of conducting a departmental inquiry under the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. The official has been ordered to be reinstated, but the court granted the department the liberty to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings in compliance with the prescribed procedure.

The petitioner, Avatar Singh, served as an Executive Engineer in the Public Health Engineering (PHE) Department of Assam. In 2022, while posted in the Nalbari Division, he was accused of misappropriating government funds under the Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin) scheme. According to allegations, payments amounting to Rs. 34.20 lakh were made in two instances—Rs. 6,00,000 on February 5, 2021, and Rs. 28,20,000 on March 21, 2021—to a third-party entity named Hames Society, allegedly without proper justification.

A preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Superintending Engineer, PHE, Nalbari Circle, under the supervision of the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari, and a report was submitted on April 4, 2022. This report was forwarded to the government, leading to a show cause notice issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, PHE Department, on June 13, 2022. The notice contained a statement of allegations, charging the petitioner with violating Rule 3 of the Assam Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1965.

Despite this, the petitioner contended that he was not given a fair opportunity to respond or defend himself before the dismissal order was issued on December 14, 2023. He argued that no formal departmental inquiry was conducted, as required under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. The petitioner also alleged that the charge sheet lacked specificity, preventing him from properly defending himself.

The court examined whether the dismissal order followed the prescribed legal procedure and found that it was issued in violation of Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, which mandates a formal inquiry before imposing a major penalty such as dismissal.

The judgment recorded that there was nothing on record to suggest that the inquiry report dated April 4, 2022, was prepared after granting any opportunity to the petitioner to defend his interest. It further noted that major penalties can be imposed upon a government servant only if the disciplinary authority, having regard to the findings in the inquiry proceeding on the charges and on the basis of evidence adduced during the inquiry, determines that a penalty under Rule 7 should be imposed.

The Deputy Commissioner of Nalbari was not the petitioner’s appointing authority and had no legal authority to initiate disciplinary action under Rule 9. The judgment clarified that only the competent disciplinary authority could initiate and conclude a departmental inquiry leading to a major penalty. The court also observed that the failure to give the petitioner an opportunity to explain his conduct before the dismissal amounted to procedural unfairness and violated natural justice principles.

The government argued that procedural lapses should not serve as grounds for exoneration, given the serious nature of the allegations. However, the court clarified that its ruling did not address the validity of the charges but only the legality of the process followed in imposing the penalty.

The judgment stated that the court was not examining the validity of the charges leveled against the petitioner but was solely determining the legality of the process followed in imposing the penalty. Accordingly, the court permitted the government to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings, provided that they comply with the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964.

The court set aside the dismissal order dated December 14, 2023, due to procedural irregularities. As a result, the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated forthwith. However, the court granted the government the liberty to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, beginning with a notice requiring him to explain his conduct.

If the government decides to proceed with fresh disciplinary action, the process must be completed within six months from March 1, 2025. This timeline was set considering the petitioner’s impending retirement in February 2026.

The petitioner will be entitled to receive consequential service benefits, but this will be subject to the outcome of the fresh disciplinary proceedings. If the proceedings are not completed within the stipulated time, the petitioner may seek appropriate relief to protect his interests.

Case Title: Avatar Singh v. The State of Assam & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C)/2211/2024
Bench: Justice Suman Shyam

[Read/Download order]