Disposed

Md. Anowar Hussain v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC11 Mar 2026WP(C)/2372/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A suspended school assistant challenged a show cause notice and enquiry report in a bribery-related departmental proceeding and sought a stay until his criminal trial concluded. The court held differing standards of proof meant no automatic stay, but directed the disciplinary authority to consider his representation against the enquiry report before passing final orders within thirty days.

What the court decided

AI extract

Md. Anowar Hussain Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors. — Corruption | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010088982024

2026:GAU-AS:3756

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/2372/2024

¶6

MD. ANOWAR HUSSAIN L.D ASSISTANT (UNDER SUSPENSION), F.A AHMED HIGH SCHOOL, BISWANATH GHAT, P.O- BISWANATH GHAT, P.S- BISWANATH CHARIALI, DIST- BISWANATH (ASSAM), PIN-782123, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, SCHOOL EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI781006

¶9

2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

¶10

ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-781019

¶11

3:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS

¶12

SONITPUR DISTRICT CIRCLE TEZPUR ASSAM

¶13

4:HEADMASTER

¶14

F.A AHMED HIGH SCHOOL BISWANATH GHAT

¶15

5:BIJAY KANDULANA

¶16

Page No.# 2/5

¶17

ENQUIRY OFFICER AND HEADMASTER RASHTRABHASHA VIDYALAYA TEZPU

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR T N SRINIVASAN, M KHATUN,MS TH A DEVI,MR. N ISLAM

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU., MR M CHETIA (r-4)

¶20

BEFORE

¶21

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶22

ORDER

¶23

12/03/2026

¶24

Heard Mr. T N Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. U Sarma, learned Standing counsel, Secondary Education Department for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3. None has appeared for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5.

¶25

2. The petitioner in the present proceeding has presented a challenge to a show cause notice dated 13.07.2023 as well as the enquiry report submitted, in pursuance to an enquiry held, in pursuance, thereof, by the Enquiry Officer on 02.08.2023.

¶26

3. The petitioner, while serving as an Lower Division Assistant (presently Junior Assistant) in F.A. Ahmed High School, Biswanath Ghat, was arrested by the Vigilance & Anti Corruption Branch, Assam in connection with ACB P.S. Case No. 27/2023 under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in the year 2018).

¶27

4. The allegation against the petitioner in the said police case was that he had demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) from the informant, therein. The petitioner, being placed under arrest and he having remained behind the bars for more than 48 hours, the Inspector of Schools, Sonitpur District Circle, Tezpur proceeded to place the petitioner under suspension.

¶28

Thereafter, vide a show cause notice dated 13.07.2023, a departmental proceeding

¶29

Page No.# 3/5

¶30

was instituted against the petitioner, herein. The petitioner is found to have submitted his written statement against the said show cause notice, on 20.07.2023. Being not satisfied with the pleas taken by the petitioner in his written statement, the disciplinary authority of the petitioner proceeded to direct for holding of an enquiry in the matter and accordingly, an Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer came to be appointed in the matter.

¶31

The Enquiry Officer, on conclusion of the enquiry proceeded to submit his report on 02.08.2023. A copy of the said enquiry report was also furnished to the petitioner, herein. The petitioner, on receipt of the said enquiry report, had submitted his representation, thereto. However, no final orders came to be issued in the matter by the disciplinary authority.

¶32

After submission of his representation in the matter against the said enquiry report dated 02.08.2023, the petitioner has instituted the present proceedings.

¶33

5. The petitioner in the present proceeding has alleged that the enquiry was not conducted in the manner as required. Further, it was projected that the Enquiry Officer had not returned findings with regard to each of the charges framed against the petitioner. The petitioner had also alleged that he was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The representation submitted by the petitioner against the enquiry report was also brought on record in the writ petition as Annexure-H, thereto.

¶34

6. This Court vide order dated 10.05.2024, while issuing notice in the present proceeding was also pleased to pass a direction that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner, till the next returnable date.

¶35

7. This Court has examined the orders passed by this Court subsequent to 10.05.2024 and finds that the directions for not taking any coercive action against the petitioner, was not continued with. Accordingly, the said direction has to be held to have lapsed after the matter was listed on 27.11.2024 on the said direction not being extended.

¶36

8. Although, the interim direction passed have not been extended, this Court has considered the projections made in the writ petition, which was also reiterated by Mr. T N Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. T N Sirnivasan, has further submitted that a

¶37

Page No.# 4/5

¶38

criminal proceeding pending against the petitioner, the departmental proceedings, be not permitted to be continued, inasmuch as the continuance of the departmental proceedings would cause prejudice to the petitioner. Accordingly, he prays that the departmental proceedings, instituted against the petitioner be stayed, till conclusion of the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner.

¶39

9. This Court finds that the said projections made in the representation submitted against the enquiry report would now be required to be so examined by the disciplinary authority, while considering the matter for passing of final orders with regard to the departmental proceedings instituted against the petitioner, herein.

¶40

10. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to keeping in abeyance the departmental proceedings, instituted against the petitioner pending conclusion of the criminal proceedings pending against him. This Court notices that the nature of evidence in a criminal trial is entirely different from the departmental proceedings. In a criminal trial, the prosecution is to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof in departmental proceedings is not the same as of the criminal trial. The evidence required in a departmental enquiry is not regulated by the provisions of the Evidence Act.

¶41

11. Under such circumstances, what is to be seen is whether the conduct of the departmental proceedings would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal case. In the present case, the instant writ petition was instituted after the enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Report was submitted. The petitioner had also submitted his representation against the Enquiry Report. Accordingly, the petitioner had himself disclosed his defence in the departmental proceedings and accordingly, the plea that his defence in the criminal trial would be compromised, would not mandate acceptance.

¶42

12. In view of the above conclusions drawn by this Court, this Court, at this stage, would not venture to draw conclusion with regard to the deficiency pointed out in the conduct of the enquiry against the petitioner, inasmuch as, the said contentions would also remain open to the petitioner in the event a penalty is so imposed upon him and the same is put to challenge

¶43

Page No.# 5/5

¶44

first in an appeal before the appellate authority and thereafter, in an appropriate proceeding before this Court.

¶45

13. In view of the above position and the disciplinary authority having not applied his mind in the matter after receipt of the representation from the petitioner against the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, this Court requires the disciplinary authority to examine the enquiry officer report along with the materials brought on record in the enquiry, in the light of the contentions raised by the petitioner in the representation submitted by him against the enquiry report and thereafter, to pass final orders in the departmental proceeding instituted against the petitioner, herein.

¶46

14. The said exercise be initiated and completed by the disciplinary authority within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy or downloaded copy of this order.

¶47

15. Mr. U Sarma, learned Standing counsel, Secondary Education Department shall forward a downloaded copy of the present order to the disciplinary authority of the petitioner for compliance of the directions passed, hereinabove.

¶48

16. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶49

JUDGE

¶50

Comparing Assistant

Md. Anowar Hussain v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Md. Anowar Hussain v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukul Bhagabati Vs Narayan Konwar and 4 Ors.

Khairul Islam Vs the State of Assam and Othrs

Uday Sarma and 3 Ors. Vs Preetom Saikia and Anr.

Dr. Rupak Nath Vs the Assam Agricultural University and 5 Ors.

Brihaspati Boro and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Ratnawali Devi Vs the State of Assam