WA/108/2026 of LNK 221 KHIRUD BHUYAN Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS on 19 April 2026

ORDER

Date : 20.04.2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J)

Heard Mr. P. K. Gogoi, learned counsel appears for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Baruah, learned counsel appears for all the respondents.

2. This appeal has put to challenge the impugned judgment and order dated 21.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 5645/2025, by which the appellant/writ petitioner’s challenge to his dismissal from service vide order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the respondent No. 5, has been rejected.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that due to the appellant being unauthorizedly absent from his duty post from the strong room with effect from 01.05.2025 at 2:00 p.m., besides being caught as one of the seven persons who had stolen paver blocks at Moran

Dheodhaigaon of Jajali Panch Ali from Dishangpani pathuguti Road, disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant.

4. The respondent then issued a show-cause notice dated 26.05.2025 to the appellant, with regard to the charges framed against the appellant. The appellant replied to the notice vide letter dated 28.05.2025, by stating that he left the place of his duty for taking tea in his house, after taking verbal permission from his superior. Further, he was not involved in the stealing of paver blocks, though the tractor that had been used for stealing the same belonged to one of his family members. The disciplinary proceeding was then held, wherein some witnesses were cross- examined by the appellant. The appellant declined to cross-examine all the witnesses.

5. The Enquiry Officer thereafter submitted his enquiry report on coming to a finding that the charges framed against the appellant had been proved. The disciplinary authority then issued a second show- cause notice to the appellant, asking him to make a reply/representation to the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. The appellant submitted his reply to the second show-cause notice on 09.07.2025, insisting on his innocence. The respondent No. 5 thereafter issued the impugned order dated 10.07.2025, dismissing the appellant from service. The appeal filed by the appellant against the dismissal order, was rejected by the appellate authority.

6. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed WP(C) No. 5645/2025, challenging the order dismissing him from service. The learned Single Judge on considering the matter, held that there was no challenge made to the first show-cause notice issued to the appellant and as such, the legality or illegality of the first show-cause notice was not required to be examined by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge also held that on going through the records, the learned Single Judge found that the appellant had either declined to cross- examine a witness or had put one or two questions in cross- examination to other witnesses. Further, as the appellant had not made a request to be assisted by a defence assistant, the absence of a defence assistant did not cause any prejudice to the appellant. The learned Single Judge also held that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610, the writ Court could not re-appreciate the evidence adduced during the departmental proceedings or evaluate as to whether there was sufficient evidence, which could have led the disciplinary authority to come to a particular opinion, regarding the charges/allegations leveled against the appellant. Further, the appellant could not show that there had been perversity on the part of the respondents, while appreciating the evidence. The learned Single Judge thus held that when the enquiry had been held according to procedure, without violating the principles of natural justice, there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to set aside the impugned order, dismissing the appellant from service.

7. On considering the fact that the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to make out a case that there has been violation of the principles of natural justice or that the procedure required to be followed had not been followed by the authorities while conducting the departmental proceedings, we do not find any grounds to interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge. We also like to add that we do not find any perversity in the findings of the respondents.

8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant