Goutam Kumar Mandal Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/17

¶2

GAHC010094842022

¶3

undefined

¶4

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/3472/2022

¶6

GOUTAM KUMAR MANDAL

¶7

S/O LATE SITARAM MANDAL, CISF NO. 032300178, INSPECTOR/EXECUTIVE, INDUSTRIAL SECTOR, CISF UNIT, OIL DULIAJAN, DIST- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PERMANENT ADD- VILL AND P.O.PIRARGORIA, P.S.-MANBAZAR, DIST- PURULIA, WEST BENGAL, PIN723131

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI

¶10

2:DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE NORTH EASTERN ZONE HEADQUARTER HOCKEY STADIUM ROAD NEAR A.G. COLONY BEHARBARI GUWAHATI

¶11

3:THE SENIOR COMMANDANT CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE UNIT OIL DULIAJAN DIST-DIBRUGARH ASSAM

¶12

4:THE ASSISTANT COMMANDANT/EXECUTIVE CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE UNIT OIL DULIAJAN DIST-DIBRUGARH ASSAM

¶13

Page No.# 2/17

¶14

5:THE DEPUTY COMMANDANT CENTRLA INDUSTIRAL SECURITY FORCE UNIT OIL DULIAJAN DIST-DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN-78660

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K ROY, MD K RAHMAN

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., MR. R K D CHOUDHURY (DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA)

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶18

For the Petitioner: Md. K. Rahman, Advocate

¶19

For the Respondents: Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, DSGI

¶20

Date of Hearing & Judgment: 15.07.2025

¶21

Judgment and Order(Oral)

¶22

Heard Md. K. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned DSGI for the respondents.

¶23

2 . This writ petition is filed by the petitioner putting to challenge the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The order dated 20.08.2021, passed by the Assistant Commandant/Executive of the CISF Unit, Oil India Limited, Duliajan whereby the punishment of “Reduction of pay by one (1) stage from Rs.60400/- to Rs.58600/- in the time scale of pay as per matrix

¶24

Page No.# 3/17

¶25

level-07 for a period of two (02) years. During the period of reduction he will earn increments of pay and that on expiry the reduction will not have the effect to postponing his future increments of pay”. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 02.11.2021 passed by the Appellate Authority affirming the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as also the order dated 31.03.2022 passed in the Revision Petition by the Deputy Inspector General, CISF, North Eastern Zone, Guwahati.

¶26

3 . The essential facts shown on how unnecessary details are that the petitioner is employed under the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and is serving in the rank of Inspector in the Executive Wing, under CISF vide CISF number 032300178. The petitioner is posted in the Oil India installations in Duliajan. On 18.06.2021, the wife of the petitioner who was deployed in duty general shift at Civil Maintenance as a CISF personnel was dropped off from her duty place to her residence by a private vehicle belonging to a civil contractor. Prior to the wife of the petitioner getting dropped off, she called up the petitioner and intimated him about that.

¶27

4 . The petitioner thereafter lodged the complaint against one of his colleagues, Inspector/Exe Tulsi Gogoi vide the complaint dated 02.07.2021 alleging that the said CISF personnel namely Tulsi Gogoi uttered some obscene words which indicated his evil thoughts and attempted to insult the modesty, reputation, dignity of his wife. He therefore requested the Senior Commandant to take suitable step or action against the said Sri Tulsi Gogoi. The petitioner also attached the call details of the conversation between the petitioner, the said Sri Tulsi Gogoi, one Hemanta Bora, namely the contractor whose vehicle had dropped off the wife of the petitioner and a voice record between the said CISF personnel, namely Inspector Tulsi Gogoi and Hemanta Bora, as well as the

¶28

Page No.# 4/17

¶29

statement of Hemanta Bora.

¶30

5 . Pursuant to this complaint, a preliminary enquiry was conducted and the Authority which conducted the preliminary enquiry namely the Deputy Commandant concluded upon careful examination of the materials that the complaint filed by the petitioner is not substantiated and the filing of such complaint was deemed unnecessary and waste of departmental time.

¶31

6 . Pursuant thereto the petitioner was served with a memo of charge dated 06.08.2021. The memorandum intimated the petitioner that a Departmental Action under Rule 37 of the CISF Rules, 2001 is proposed against the petitioner. The substance of imputation of misconduct or misbehavior, in respect of which departmental action is contemplated, is enclosed to the memorandum. The petitioner was asked to submit his reply within 10 days. The petitioner thereafter, submitted his reply to the memorandum denying all the allegations. Being dissatisfied with the reply filed by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded with the enquiry by appointing an Enquiry Officer. The final order dated 20.08.2021 was passed by the enquiry officer holding the charges to be true and recommending penalty of “Reduction of pay by one (1) stage from Rs.60400/- to Rs.58600/- in the time scale of pay as per matrix level-07 for a period of two (02) years. During the period of reduction he will earn increments of pay and that on expiry the reduction will not have the effect to postponing his future increments of pay”. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed by the petitioner, which came to be dismissed by order dated 02.11.2021, whereby the order passed by the disciplinary authorities stood affirmed. A revision was also preferred by the petitioner against the award of the penalty which also came to be dismissed by order dated 31.03.2022. Being aggrieved the present writ petition has been filed.

¶32

Page No.# 5/17

¶33

7 . The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire enquiry proceeding was initiated as because the petitioner had lodged a complaint against the said Sri Tulsi Gogoi. In the understanding of the petitioner, the utterances made by the said Sri Tulsi Gogoi with regard to his wife on the date of the incident, are obscene words with the intention to insult his wife's modesty, reputation, dignity and to make her feel insecure. It is submitted that the complaint filed by the petitioner was closed on the ground that the allegations made against Sri Tulsi Gogoi was found to be unsubstantiated. However, the departmental proceedings against the writ petitioner was initiated on the ground that he had committed a misconduct. It is submitted that under the provisions of the CISF Act and the Rules framed thereunder, there is no provisions which has been referred to by the Respondent Authority in support of their actions that filing of complaint against colleagues in the services which if found to be unsubstantiated will amount to misconduct. It is submitted that the article of charge enclosed to the memorandum clearly shows that the complaint lodged by the petitioner against Sri Tulsi Gogoi was found false and baseless and was with a deliberate move to malign the character of Sri Tulsi Gogoi. It is submitted that mere filing of a complaint cannot be treated to be an act which can be taken as a deliberate move to malign the character of Tulsi Gogoi, as alleged. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint filed by the petitioner was not a false complaint and the incident did occur and the utterances were made by the said Sri Tulsi Gogoi against his wife and which the petitioner's understanding, considering into the demeaning and obscene, and which were intended to insult his modesty, reputation and dignity. At best, the complaint filed by the petitioner can be set to be unsubstantiated and no further proceedings may have been carried on. However, the allegation

¶34

Page No.# 6/17

¶35

that it is a misconduct merely because he filed the complaint is not supported by the provisions of the Act and the Rules, and an attempt to harass the petitioner merely because he had lodged a complaint against one Sri Tulsi Gogoi.

¶36

8 . Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned DSGI for the respondents disputes the contentions raised by the petitioner. The respondents have filed their affidavit disputing the various averments made in the writ petition. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no infirmity in the proceedings initiated as, bare perusal of the complaint as well as the statement of the said Sri Hemanta Bora revealed that the petitioner was aware of the fact that his wife was dropped off from her duty place to her residence of that particular date. Inspite of that, the petitioner charged the said Sri Tulsi Gogoi, that some civilian vehicle had entered the premises to drop off a lady and the CISF personnel, including the said Sri Tulsi Gogoi, was unaware of that. This is revealed during the proceedings and from this it is evident that the petitioner was well aware of who was being dropped off in the vehicle and to whom does the vehicle belong. There is no denial that the lady dropped off was the wife of the petitioner and she had intimated the petitioner that she will be availing transportation through the private vehicle in view of the prevailing weather conditions, which was a very rainy day. Under such circumstances there was no occasion for the petitioner to question the said Sri Tulsi Gogoi regarding the particulars of the vehicle and the lady who was dropped off on that particular day. That apart, the utterances made by the said Sri Tulsi Gogoi, has been found to be innocuous and not objectionable as alleged by the petitioner in his complaint. It is therefore evident from the enquiry that the complaint made by the petitioner was totally unnecessary and was filed for reasons which are not

¶37

Page No.# 7/17

¶38

genuine. Consequently, he is a member of a discipline force, the respondent Authority considered this to be a misconduct and initiated the departmental proceedings against the writ petitioner by issuing the memo of charges. The petitioner was given every opportunity to participate in the proceedings and thereafter, the charges were held to be proved and punishment imposed. The Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority also upheld the punishment imposed and consequently dismissed the appeal and the revision petition filed by the writ petitioner.

¶39

9 . Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury has referred to a Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in State of Punjab and others Vs. Ram Singh Ex. Constable reported in 1992 Supreme(SC) 468 to submit the term “misconduct” as have been considered and illustrated by the Apex Court in the said judgment. He fairly submits that the term “misconduct” is not defined under the Act of the Rules, and therefore, the general meaning ascribed to the term “misconduct” has to be referred to and he places reliance in that context on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

¶40

10 . The learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Pleadings are available on record carefully perused. Judgment cited at the bar have been carefully noted. Provisions of the Act and the Rules have also been carefully perused.

¶41

11 . In the Rule 37 is the procedure mandated under the CISF Rules, 2001 for imposition of minor penalties. Rule 37 reads as under :-

¶42

Procedure for imposing minor penalties.-(1) No order imposing any of minor penalties specified in rule 34 shall be made except after-

¶43

(a) informing the enrolled member in writing of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he wishes to make against the

¶44

Page No.# 8/17

¶45

proposal;

¶46

(b) holding an enquiry, if the disciplinary authority so desires, in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (22) of rule 36;

¶47

(c) taking the representation, if any, submitted by the enrolled member under clause (a) and the record of enquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into consideration; and

¶48

(d) recording the findings on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour.

¶49

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) of sub-rule (1), if in a case it is proposed after considering the representation, if any, made by the Government servant under clause (a) of that sub-rule to withhold increments of pay and such withholding of increments is likely to affect adversely the amount of pension payable to the government servant or to withhold increments of pay for a period exceeding 3 years or to withhold increments of pay with cumulative rules (3) to (22) of rule 36 before making any order imposing on the enrolled member of the Force any such penalty.

¶50

(3) The records of the proceedings in such cases shall include

¶51

(i) a copy of the intimation to the enrolled member so charged of the proposal to take action against him;

¶52

(ii) a copy of the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour delivered to him;

¶53

(iii) his representation, if any;

¶54

(iv) the evidence produced during the enquiry, if any;

¶55

(v) the findings on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour; and

¶56

(vi) the orders on the case together with the reasons therefor.

¶57

12 . The whole episode in the basis of which misconduct is alleged against the writ petitioner and the departmental proceedings have been initiated and punishments having been imposed arises from a complaint dated 02.07.2021 which was filed by the petitioner. Since the proceedings against the writ petitioner had arisen from an episode which is described in the complaint, the complaint is extracted below :-

¶58

Page No.# 9/17

¶59

To

¶60

The Senior Commandant

¶61

CISF Unit Oil Duliajan, Assam

¶62

(Through proper channel)

¶63

SUB: COMPLAIN AGAINST INSP/EXE TULSI GOGOI(I/C CIW): Reg.

¶64

Respected Sir,

¶65

With due respect and humble submission No 032300178, Insp/Exe G K Mandal beg to state that following few lines for your kind consideration and favorable order me please.

¶66

On 18/06/2021 my wife was deployed General shift at CIVIL Maintainace from 0630 hrs to 1500hrs. On that date about due to heavy rain, forget rain coat and scooty not working properly my wife was unable to come from duty place to her residence. On 18/06/2021 about 1540hrs she call me from Civil contractor name HEMANTA BORA (nick name RINKU) mobile's (mobile No 7399038774) to get my concern. So I requested to HEMANTA BORA (RINKU) to droo my wife with his vehicle and he dropped my wife at my residence Surakshanagar.

¶67

On 18/06/2021 at about 1558 hrs Insp/Exe Tulasi Gogol (I/C of CIW) called his mobile ( mobile No 8509940867) to HEMANTA BORA (RINKLI) mobile (mobile No 600170590) and insp/Exa Tulasi Gogoi (I/C of CIW) intended to pass utter and unscrupulous obscene words which cleariy indicates of having evil thoughts and intended to insult my wife's Modesty, harm Reputation, hurt Dignity and feel Insecure.

¶68

Therefore it is requested to kindly take sultable step against Insp/Exe Tulasi Gogoi (I/C of CIW) and inform me the final result of the action please.

¶69

I have attached call details of 01. Mine, 02. Insp/Exe Tulsi Gogoi, 03. HEMANTA BORA (RINKU) and 04. Voice record (Pen drive) between Insp/Exe Tulasi Gogoi and HEMANTA BORA (RINKU) and 05.statement of HEMANTA BORA

¶70

(My mobile No 9436286131, Insp/Exe Tulasi Gogoi mobile No 8509940867, and HEMANTA BORA mobile No 600170590 and 7399038774)

¶71

Thanking you sir

¶72

Dated:02.07.2020 Yours faithfully Duliajan INSP/EXE G K MANDAL CISF No 032300178 CISF Unit Oil Dullajan (IND Sector)

¶73

Page No.# 10/17

¶74

13 . The complaint is also endorsed by the statement of the Civil Contractor, whose vehicle is petitioner’s wife was dropped off to her residence. The said statement of Sri Hemanta Bora (Rinku) is also extract below :-

¶75

STATEMENT OF HEMANTA BORA (RINKU)

¶76

On 18^th June 2021 at about 1536 Hrs, while I was at the gate of the Civil Engineering Department and it was raining heavily: Mrs Susmita Mandal requested me to make a call in the Mobile No. 943628613 which belongs to her husband Mr G.K. Mandal, as she has not brought Mandal for Mrs Mandal but instead of making an arrangement, Mr G.K. Mandal requested me to drop his wife Smti SUSMITA MANDAL off to their residence at Suraksha Nagar

¶77

So, on his request, I gave her a lift in my car bearing Regd. NO. AS06V9888 and dropped Mrs Susmita to her residence & returned back. On the same day at about 1558 Hours, Mr. Tulshi Gogoi called me on my Mobile No. 600170590 with his Mobile 8509940867 and passed an uttered & unscrupulous obscene language which clearly indicates of having evil thoughts and intended to insult Mrs Mondal's modesty, harm reputation, hurt dignity along with a question mark on my character.

¶78

I have attached the call details of1) G.K. MANDAL (9436286131) 2) TULSI GOGOI (8509940867) and

¶79

Hemanta Bora (Rinku) (600170590, 7399038774)

¶80

Voice Recordings (PEN DRIVE)

¶81

SIGNATURE (SRI HEMANTA BORA) S/O LATE PADMA KANTA BORA NEAR AGCL MAIN GATE, DULIAJAN)

¶82

14 . During the course of the hearing, the learned DSGI is fairly submitted that pursuant to the complaint being made there was a preliminary enquiry conducted. The petitioner as well as the various personnel who were considered to be relevant for the purposes of the Preliminary enquiry was examined and finally the conclusions were arisen at by the Deputy Commandant, who was

¶83

Page No.# 11/17

¶84

appointed as a Preliminary Enquiry Officer, that the complaint filed by the petitioner is not substantiated at first glance. Filing such complaint by the petitioner is “deemed unnecessary and a waste of departmental time”.

¶85

15 . This preliminary enquiry, however, is not part of the pleadings, during the course of the hearing, the learned DSGI has placed before the Court.

¶86

16 . From a careful perusal of the preliminary enquiry, it is seen that in respect of the complaint dated 02.07.2021, lodged by the petitioner against the Sri Tulsi Gogoi, upon examination of the witnesses and the documents available, the preliminary enquiry officer concluded that the said inspector Sri Tulsi Gogoi did not use any obscene language and the conversation was carried out in a normal manner. The complaint submitted by the petitioner was held to be substantiated and filing such complaint is being unnecessary and waste of departmental time. The said preliminary enquiry report was submitted for perusal and necessary action of the Higher Authorities. Pursuant to the preliminary enquiry conducted, the Departmental Authorities has taken a decision to initiate departmental proceedings against the writ petitioner by issuing the memorandum dated 06.08.2021. The memorandum and the Articles of charge issued to the petitioner are extracted below and reads as under :-

¶87

Office of the Sr. Commandant

¶88

Central Industrial Security Force

¶89

(Ministry of Home Affairs)CISF Unit OIL Duliajan

¶90

Distt-Dibrugarh (Assam)

¶91

No.V-15014/CISF/GKM/UR-37/OIL/D)/L&D/2021-3201 Dated: 06/08/2021

¶92

MEMORANDUM

¶93

It is proposed to take disciplinary action Under Rule-37 of CISF Rules 2001 against No.032300178 Insp/Exe Goutam Kumar Mandal of Industrial Sector, CISF

¶94

Page No.# 12/17

¶95

Unit OIL Duliajan. The substance of the imputation of misconduct or misbehavior in respect of which disciplinary action is contemplated is given in Annexure-'A' to this memorandum.

¶96

The above said enrolled member of the Force is hereby given an opportunity to make representation against the charge which should be submitted within 10 days of date of receipt of this memorandum.

¶97

If the above said enrolled member of the Force fails to submit his representation within 10 days of receipt of this memorandum, it will be presumed that he has nothing to represent and orders as deemed fit will be passed against No.032300178 Insp/Exe Goutam Kumar Mandal ex-parte without further notice.

¶98

The receipt of this memorandum should be acknowledged.

¶99

(Ravi Gupta) Asstt.Commandant/Exe CISF Unit OIL Duliajan

¶100

DESCRIPTION OF THE ARTICLE OF CHARGE IMPUTED AGAINST CISF NO.032300178 INSP/EXE GOUTAM KUMAR MANDAL, INDUSTRIAL SECTOR OF CISF UNIT OIL DULIAJAN UNDER RULE-37 OF CISF RULES, 2001.

¶101

"That CISF No. 032300178 Insp/Exe-Goutam Kumar Mandal of Industrial Sector, CISF Unit OIL Duliajan has exhibited an act of serious misconduct in that he submitted a written compliant dated 02-07-2021 against Insp/Exe-Tulsi Gogoi (I/C CIW of this Unit) with the allegation that Insp/Exe- Tulsi Gogoi had uttered unscrupulous and obscene remarks with intention to insult the modesty of his wife L/HC/GD- Susmita Mandal, harm her reputation and dignity. Further, it has been revealed on enquiry that the complaint made by Insp/Exe Goutam Kumar Mandal is false and baseless and he had submitted the complaint with a deliberate motive to malign the character of Insp/Exe Tulsi Gogoi. Such act of omission and commission on part of Insp/Exe-Goutam Kumar Mandal tantamounts to gross misconduct and indiscipline which is unbecoming of a disciplined Sub-officer of the Force." Hence, the charge.

¶102

(Ravi Gupta) Asstt.Commandant/Exe CISF Unit OIL Duliajan

¶103

17 . To the said memorandum of charge the petitioner filed his reply denying the allegations made and substantiating his stand that there was indeed

¶104

Page No.# 13/17

¶105

obscene words used by the said Sri Tulsi Gogoi because of which he had lodged the complaint. Subsequently, the Disciplinary Authority concluded that the charge namely the petitioner had submitted the complaint with a deliberate motive to malign the charge that the character of inspector Tulsi Gogoi, which is undesirable, unacceptable and a serious act of indiscipline and misconduct in a Central Armed Police Force like CISF and attracts suitable disciplinary action. The Disciplinary Authority concluded that making false and baseless allegation against a colleague amounts to an act of grave misconduct particularly in the facts and circumstances of the case wherein it was revealed in the preliminary enquiry that he provoked the said inspector Tulsi Gogoi to enquire into the matter despite being fully aware of the entire facts of the case and consequently, the punishment for “Reduction of pay by one (1) stage from Rs.60400/- to Rs.58600/- in the time scale of pay as per matrix level-07 for a period of two (02) years. During the period of reduction he will earn increments of pay and that on expiry the reduction will not have the effect to postponing his future increments of pay” was imposed.

¶106

18 . As per the provisions of Rule 37, for imposition of minor penalties, the procedure has been carefully delineated under the said Rules. Where the withholding of pay and withholding of increments for a period of exceeding three years or with cumulative effect was imposed as a punishment then an enquiry is required to be held. Otherwise, under Rule 37(1)(b), the enquiry may be held on the disciplinary authorities so desires.

¶107

19 . From a perusal of the memo dated 06.08.2021 read with the article of charge, it is seen that the charge framed against the petitioner is that he made a false and baseless complaint against his colleague, inspector Tulsi Gogoi with a deliberate motive to malign the said officer's character and therefore, such an

¶108

Page No.# 14/17

¶109

act or an omission on the part of the petitioner tantamounts to gross misconduct and discipline which is unbecoming of the disciplined officer of the Force. A perusal of the final order by the disciplinary authority does not bring out any evidence to substantiate the stand of the department that the allegation made against the said officer Tulsi Gogoi was false and a baseless allegation which amounts to grave misconduct. The complaint filed by the petitioner against the said Inspector Tulsi Gogoi clearly revealed that the petitioner was aware of the fact that his wife was dropped off in a private vehicle within the Oil India premises from her place of duty to her residence on 18.06.2021 after completion of her duty hours and prior to that she had intimated the petitioner that she wanted to be dropped off in a vehicle because of the heavy rain and the fact that she forgot to take a raincoat and the scooty was also not working properly. It is further alleged in the complaint that the said Sri Tulsi Gogoi spoke to said Hemanta Bora and intended to utter obscene words which affected his wife's modesty, reputation, dignity, etc. The statement of Hemanta Bora which is enclosed to the complaint also reveals that the said Sri Tulsi Gogoi had called the said Sri Hemanta Bora and passed an unscrupulous obscene language which clearly indicates of having evil thoughts and intended to insult the modesty, reputation, dignity of the wife of the petitioner as well as put a question mark on the character of Sri Hemanta Bora himself. The statement of Hemanta Bora is shown to be signed on 01.07.2021.

¶110

20 . Under such circumstances, it is evident that the complaint of the writ petitioner in respect of Sri Tulsi Gogoi was in respect of utterances of the obscene words which the petitioner believed was uttered by the said Tulsi Gogoi and was intended to harm the reputation, dignity and modesty of his wife and this complaint is supported by a similar statement signed by the person who

¶111

Page No.# 15/17

¶112

had dropped off his wife on that day of the incident and with whom the said Inspector Tulsi Gogoi had telephonic conversation. The said signed statement also revealed that the said Sri Tulsi Gogoi had called up the said Sri Hemanta Bora from his telephone and uttered obscene languages intending to insult the modesty, reputation, dignity of the petitioner’s wife.

¶113

21 . Therefore, from a mere perusal of the complaint read with the statement enclosed reveals that the petitioner lodged a complaint against his colleague Sri Tulsi Gogoi. On his understanding that the words uttered by Sri Tulsi Gogoi were obscene and were intended to harm the modesty, reputation, dignity of his wife. The preliminary enquiry report, which is placed before the Court also reveals that such an incident did take place. However, on careful examination of the witnesses and the materials placed before the enquiry officer in the preliminary enquiry, it was concluded that the complaint submitted by the petitioner is not substantiated and was deemed unnecessary and waste of departmental time. There was no finding in the preliminary enquiry that the complaint lodged by the petitioner was false and/or baseless allegations were made against the colleague to malign the character of said Sri Tulsi Gogoi. The memorandum along with the statement of Article of Charge refer to the enquiry on the complaint filed by the petitioner holding that the enquiry revealed that the complaint made by the petitioner is false and baseless and the complaint had been made with a deliberate motive to malign the character of the said Sri Tulsi Gogoi. However, a perusal of the preliminary enquiry report does not reveal that any such findings being arrived at by the preliminary enquiry officer in the enquiry which is conducted.

¶114

22 . Under such circumstances, it is evident that the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner is based on the enquiry (preliminary enquiry

¶115

Page No.# 16/17

¶116

made) and the findings of such enquiry that the complaint by the petitioner is false and baseless with a deliberate motive to malign the character of the said Sri Tulsi Gogoi. However, there is no such finding is revealed in the conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer.

¶117

23 . That apart in the absence of any specific provision under the Act and the Rules specifically defining “misconduct”, the disciplinary authority is required to refer to such instances or evidences which can be construed to be misconduct after such opportunity is granted to the writ petitioner. The entire enquiry report is found to be largely based on the preliminary enquiry which is conducted against the petitioner. There is no finding by the enquiry officer as to how the allegations of misconduct against the writ petitioner is substantiated and as to whether the act alleged to have been committed by the petitioner will be within the domain of the term “misconduct” in the absence of any such specific provisions under the Act and the Rules. No reference to any authorities is found to be cited in the order passed by the disciplinary authority to substantiate its conclusion that the actions or inactions of the petitioner can be and is required to be construed to be “misconduct” and which entails the punishment imposed to the writ petitioner.

¶118

24 . The Judgment referred to by the learned DSGI, clearly examines the terms of “misconduct” as per the definition given in Black’s Law as well as the Law Lexicon. The relevant portions are extracted below :-

¶119

Misconduct has been defined In Blacks Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition at page 999 thus

¶120

"A transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behaviour, wilful in character, Improper or wrong behaviour, its synonyms are misdemeanour, misdeed, misbehaviour, delinquency, impropriety, mismanagement, offence, but not negligence or carelessness."

¶121

Page No.# 17/17

¶122

Misconduct in office has been defined as:

¶123

"Any unlawful behaviour by a public officer in relation to the duties of his office, wilful in character. The term embraces acts which the office holder had no right to perform, acts performed improperly, and fallure to act in the face of an affirmative duty to act.

¶124

P.Ramanatha Alyars the Law Lexicon, Reprint Edition 1987 at p. 821 misconduct defines thus:-

¶125

"The term misconduct, implies a wrongful intention, and not a mere error of judgment. Misconduct is not necessarily the same thing as conduct involving moral turpitude. The word misconduct is a relative term, and has to be construed with reference to the subject-matter and the context wherein the term occurs, having regard to the scope of the Act or statute which is being construed. Misconduct literally means wrong conduct or improper conduct. In usual parlance, misconduct means a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, where no discretion if left, except what necessity may demand and carelessness, negligence and unskillfulness are transgressions of some established, but indefinite, rule of action, where some discretion is necessarily left to the actor. Misconduct is a violation of definite law; carelessness or abuse of discretion under an indefinite law. Misconduct is a forbidden act; carelessness, a forbidden quality of an act, and is necessarily indefinite. Misconduct in office may be defined as unlawful behaviour or neglect by a public officer, by which the rights of a party have been affected."

¶126

25 . The only case projected against the petitioner is that he had lodged a false and baseless complaint against his colleague Tulsi Gogoi with an attempt to malign his character. This in the opinion of this Court is not seen from the facts narrated above and discussed. Under such circumstances, this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition, the impugned order of penalty dated 20.08.2021 along with the orders passed in the appellate and revisional authority are hereby interfered with and set aside. The petitioner will be entitled to his full service benefits with effect from the date of imposition of the order of penalty.

¶127

26 . Writ petition accordingly disposed of.

¶128

JUDGE

¶129

Comparing Assistant

Goutam Kumar Mandal v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Goutam Kumar Mandal v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Bagasa Plantations Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Assam

Ashim Kumar Deka Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Sarala Hazarika Vs the State of Assam

Mozammel Hoque Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Jagadish Chandra Chanda Vs the General Manager

Gobinda Rajbangshi and Anr. Vs Smti Bhaswati Das and 3 Ors.