Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/4511/2025 of ANUP KUMAR MALAKAR Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS on 26 August 2026
GAHC010170782025 2026:GAU-AS:12328 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4511/2025 ANUP KUMAR MALAKAR S/O ANIL KUMAR BISWASHI, R/O VILL. PAKORKONA, P.O. ROMARI, P.S. HAJO, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
GAHC010170782025
2026:GAU-AS:12328
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4511/2025 ANUP KUMAR MALAKAR S/O ANIL KUMAR BISWASHI, R/O VILL. PAKORKONA, P.O. ROMARI, P.S. HAJO, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME AND POLITICAL DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 06 2:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS ASSAM ASSAM PRISON HEADQUARTERS KHANAPARA GUWAHATI 781022 3:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISON (RANGE) JORHAT ASSAM. 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DIST. JAIL MORIGAON ASSAM. 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT SPECIAL JAIL NAGAON CUM INQUIRY OFFICER NAGAON ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D DAS SR. ADV, MS S SHARMA,MR. K MOHAMMED Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO O R D E R 27.08.2026 Heard Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Mohammed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. C Chutia, learned senior counsel and Senior Government Advocate for the State respondents. Having regard to the controversy involved, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.
2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure-8), by which, he has been removed from service for gross negligence and dereliction of duty in connection with the escape of five Under Trial Prisoners from the District Jail, Morigaon on 11.10.2024 with effect from the date of issuance of the order. The main ground for challenging the removal order as per the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that a copy of the Enquiry Report was not furnished to the petitioner before issuance of the impugned order of removal from service. He submits that although it is the contention of the respondents in their affidavit that a copy of the Enquiry Report was given to him, but the learned senior counsel submits that going by the Memo Number of the communication dated 16.06.2025, by which the Enquiry Report was said to have been given to the petitioner, the same appears to be issued after the impugned order dated 30.06.2025 removing him from service was issued. In other words, the learned senior counsel submits that while the Memo Number under which the order of removal was issued is No.PRI/DIG(JR)/16/2024/12, the Memo Number by which the Enquiry Report was said to have been furnished to the petitioner is No.PRI/DIG(JR)/16/2024/15. Learned senior counsel therefore, submits that the Memo Number only speaks for itself. Under the circumstances, the impugned order of removal is vitiated and also in violation of Rule-9A of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. In support of his submission, the learned senior counsel relies upon the case of Punjab National Bank and Others v. K.K. Verma, reported in (2010) 13 SCC 494.
3. Mr. T.C Chutia, learned Senior Government Advocate fairly submits that since it cannot be established now whether the Enquiry Report was furnished prior to issuance of the impugned order, in all fairness, the matter may be remanded back to the disciplinary authority for a fresh consideration after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to respond to the Enquiry Report by furnishing the same to the petitioner.
4. In view of above, other aspects of the case need not be gone into and accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.06.2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the disciplinary authority to take a decision afresh. The disciplinary authority shall formally give a copy of the Enquiry Report to the petitioner and shall get an acknowledgement from him. It is also made clear that the petitioner be given adequate opportunity to respond against the Enquiry Report, where-after the respondent authorities concerned shall take a decision by passing a reasoned and speaking order.
5. It is needless to state herein that upon the interference of the impugned order of removal from service, the petitioner shall be deemed to be under suspension till an appropriate order is passed by the disciplinary authority.
6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of as allowed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant