Meghalaya High Court Quashes Fresh Disciplinary Inquiry | College Violated Court Order By Reopening 2006 Charges | Criminal Trial To Proceed Separately
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Meghalaya Single Bench of Acting Chief Justice H. S. Thangkhiew has quashed a disciplinary memorandum dated 18.10.2024 that proposed a fresh inquiry against a petitioner, citing violation of prior judicial directives. The Court concluded that the respondents failed to comply with its earlier order directing completion of disciplinary proceedings within six weeks based on an inquiry report dated 25.11.2006. The Court held that instead of acting upon the existing report, the respondents unjustifiably initiated new proceedings on the same charges, thereby acting in clear contravention of binding directions. The judgment stated that such action was irrational and constituted a breach of judicial order.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the memorandum initiating the fresh inquiry while clarifying that the ongoing criminal proceedings against the petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shillong, remain unaffected. The writ petition was allowed and disposed of with this declaration.
The petitioner challenged a memorandum dated 18.10.2024 which proposed to initiate a fresh disciplinary inquiry concerning allegations of forgery and misappropriation dating back to 2006. The petitioner contended that the same matter had already been addressed through a prior inquiry culminating in a report dated 25.11.2006. The writ petition was filed on the ground that a fresh inquiry violated the directions of the Court issued on 09.09.2024 in WP(C) No. 146 of 2024.
According to the petitioner, the earlier proceedings stemmed from allegations of misappropriation and forgery involving college funds encashed fraudulently from the Canara Bank extension counter. Following these allegations, the petitioner was suspended on 09.06.2006 from his position as Lower Division Assistant in a government-aided college in Meghalaya. A departmental inquiry was conducted and concluded with a report dated 25.11.2006.
Simultaneously, a criminal complaint had been lodged, resulting in GR Case No. 68 of 2007, which remains pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shillong. Despite the conclusion of the internal inquiry in 2006, the disciplinary authorities did not take further action, citing the pendency of the criminal trial as a reason for inaction.
In WP(C) No. 146 of 2024, the petitioner sought recall of his suspension and withdrawal of an eviction notice, arguing that the disciplinary proceedings had been unduly delayed and that he had not been afforded a fair opportunity to defend himself. In its order dated 09.09.2024, the Court observed that although the inquiry report had been submitted nearly two decades earlier, the authorities had taken no steps to conclude the proceedings.
Specifically, the Court directed the college authorities—respondents No. 3, 4 and 5—to complete the disciplinary proceedings based on the 2006 inquiry report within six weeks from the date of the order. The Court further instructed that any proposed action be communicated to the petitioner, and that he be given an opportunity to respond.
However, contrary to these directions, the respondents issued the impugned memorandum on 18.10.2024 proposing a new inquiry on the same set of allegations. The petitioner contended that this was a deliberate attempt to circumvent judicial oversight and re-litigate matters already addressed in the previous inquiry.
Representing the petitioner, Senior Counsel Mr. K. Paul, assisted by Mr. S. Chanda, argued that the memorandum constituted a perverse act in direct violation of the judicial directive issued on 09.09.2024. It was further submitted that the prior inquiry report did not hold the petitioner complicit in the alleged offences and that reopening the inquiry was unwarranted.
Counsel for the respondents No. 3, 4 and 5, Mr. S. Sen, contended that the earlier report had been found inadequate by the Governing Body of the College, which justified the initiation of a fresh inquiry. He maintained that the misconduct in question was grave and criminal in nature, and that the decision to initiate fresh proceedings was taken in light of perceived deficiencies in the original inquiry.
Further, it was submitted that the pendency of the criminal trial necessitated a separate and thorough disciplinary review. Mr. Sen also cited two Supreme Court judgments—Secretary, Ministry of Defence & Ors. vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha (2012) and Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. vs. A. Masilamani (2013)—to support the argument that delay alone is not sufficient to quash disciplinary proceedings when serious charges are involved.
The Court took note of its own order dated 09.09.2024, observing “this Court at this stage directs the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5, to complete the said inquiry proceedings based on the inquiry report dated 25.11.2006 within a period of six weeks from today.”
The Court further recorded: “Instead of concluding the proceedings, the respondents by the impugned notification dated 18.10.2024, have sought to institute fresh proceedings against the writ petitioner, on the same Articles of charge, for which the earlier inquiry had been initiated and had culminated in the inquiry report.”
In analysing the facts, the Court stated: “The respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 have apart from sitting over an inquiry since 2006, and in spite of the orders of this Court... have acted in a way that is irrational, and in fact, in violation of the orders of this Court.”
The Court found that the renewed action lacked justification and constituted a direct contravention of specific judicial directives. It recorded that while the pendency of the criminal trial might justify delay in administrative action, it did not entitle the respondents to disregard court orders and initiate fresh proceedings on already adjudicated charges.
The Court declined to examine the judgments cited by the respondents, stating: “The judgments placed by the learned counsel for the respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 being on a different footing are not discussed or elaborated upon.”
The Court issued the following direction in unequivocal terms: “In these circumstances therefore, in view of the severe shortcomings of the respondents No. 3, 4 and 5, the impugned Memorandum dated 18.10.2024, as far as it relates to the petitioner stands quashed.”
Additionally, the Court clarified that: “This however, will have no bearing in the pending criminal proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shillong, which is stated to be at the stage of evidence.”
The writ petition was thereby allowed and disposed of accordingly, with the Court invalidating the fresh inquiry memorandum and upholding the exclusivity of its earlier directive.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. K. Paul, Senior Advocate with Mr. S. Chanda, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mrs. T. Yangi. B., Additional Advocate General with Ms. Z.E. Nongkynrih, Government Advocate; Mr. S. Sen, Advocate
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Roy v. State of Meghalaya & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: MLHC:552
Case Number: WP(C) No. 404 of 2024
Bench: Acting Chief Justice H. S. Thangkhiew
