Tarun Gogoi vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors

Page No.# 1/11
GAHC010256102024

2026:GAU-AS:6228
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6751/2024
TARUN GOGOI
S/O SUNIL KUMAR GOGOI,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JAMUGURIGAON, PS AND DIST JORHAT, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT, DISPUR GUWAHATI 06
2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
ULUBARI GUWAHATI 07
3:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ADMIN)
ASSAM GUWAHATI 07
4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
BONGAIGAON ASSAM 78338
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KHAN, MS J AKTAR,MR A K DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM,

Page No.# 2/11
B E F O R E

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR


For the Petitioner : Mr. M Khan
For the Respondent : Mr. P Nayak
Ms. M Bhattacharjee

Date of Hearing : 30.01.2026
Date of Judgment : 29.04.2026


JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. M Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P
Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam and Ms. M Bhattacharjee,
learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present writ petition has assailed
an order dated 14.10.2024, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Bongaigaon,
Assam, towards imposing the penalty of dismissal from service upon the
petitioner, by invoking the provisions of Clause-(b) of the Second Proviso to
Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, read with Rule 10(ii) of the Assam
Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter, referred to as the
Rules of 1964).
3. The petitioner, herein, was appointed as Armed Branch Constable, w.e.f.
th
23.02.2009 and was initially posted with the 16 A.P. (IR) Battalion Bormonipur,

Page No.# 3/11
th
Morigaon. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to the 25 Assam Police
(ONGC) Battalion, Ligiripukhuri, Nazira and subsequently, was transferred and
posted to the District Police Establishment, Bongaigaon in the month of June,
2022. While serving in such capacity, the petitioner came to be arrested on
15.09.2024, in connection with Bongaigaon P.S. Case No. 318/2024 under
Sections 331(3)/75(2)/127(2) BNS, 2023, read with Section 10 of the POCSO
Act.
The Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, on his arrest in connection with
the above noted criminal case, proceeded to issue an order dated 19.09.2024,
placing the petitioner under suspension, w.e.f. 16.09.2024. The petitioner was
enlarged on bail, vide order dated 16.11.2024, passed by the learned Special
Judge, Bongaigaon. On being enlarged on bail, the petitioner was served with a
copy of the impugned order dated 14.10.2024, whereby, in connection with the
allegations involved in the criminal case instituted against the petitioner, the
Disciplinary Authority drew satisfaction that it was impracticable to hold an
enquiry against the petitioner and proceeded to dismiss him from service by
invoking the provisions of Clause-(b) of the Second Proviso to Article 311(2) of
the Constitution of India read with Rule 10(ii) of the Assam Services (Discipline
and Appeal) Rules, 1964.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner, herein, has instituted the present
proceedings.
4. Mr. M Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing the attention of
this Court to the order dated 14.10.2024, has submitted that the Disciplinary
Authority had only considered the nature of the misconduct committed by the
petitioner in the said order for the purpose of imposing the penalty of dismissal

Page No.# 4/11
from service, by dispensing the enquiry mandated to be carried out. He submits
that the provisions of Clause-(b) of the Second Proviso to Article 311(2) of the
Constitution of India, empowers a Disciplinary Authority to dismiss, remove or
reduce in rank an employee, without holding an enquiry, by recording reasons
as to why it was not reasonably practicable to hold such enquiry. He submits
that provisions similar to the above exists in the provisions of Rule-10(ii) of the
Rules of 1964. He submits that the Disciplinary Authority in the impugned order
dated 14.10.2024, has not adduced any reason to highlight as to why it was not
reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry against the petitioner, herein. He
submits that it is sine-qua-non that for the purpose of invoking the provisions of
Clause (b) to the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India,
adequate reasons have to be assigned by the Disciplinary Authority, preferably
before issuance of the impugned order of dismissal, removal or reduction in
rank and/or atleast incorporate such reasons in the order, itself.
4.1 Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that although, a
notice in the matter is not called for, to be issued before exercising of power
under Clause (b) to the second proviso to Article 311(2), the assignment of
reason with regard to the impracticability to hold an enquiry must find mention
at least in the impugned order. He submits that the respondent authorities by
selectively reading an order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
the case of Madhab Gogoi Vs. State of Assam & Ors. (judgment dated
15.10.2020 in WP(C) No. 4212/2020), had proceeded to pass the impugned
order dated 14.10.2024. He submits that the order dated 14.10.2024, having
not satisfied the requirements of Clause (b) to the second proviso to Article
311(2) of the Constitution of India, as well as Rule 10(ii) of the Rules of 1964,
the satisfaction required to be drawn by the Disciplinary Authority before

Page No.# 5/11
arriving at a conclusion that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an
enquiry, being absent, in the order dated 14.10.2024, the said order would
mandate an interference. He submits that the criminal proceedings basing on
the same charge instituted against the petitioner, is pending at the stage of trial.
He submits that the petitioner would be required to be reinstated in his service.
5. Per contra, Ms. M Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior
Government Advocate, has submitted that considering the nature of the
allegations leveled against the petitioner as well as from the enquiry report
submitted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Head Quarter,
Bongaigaon, it being evident that the petitioner had committed a serious
offence, appropriate action in the matter was deemed necessary to be taken
against him, to maintain the image of the force and accordingly, the respondent
authorities had proceeded to issue the impugned order dated 14.10.2024,
imposing the penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner, by invoking
the provisions of Clause-(b) of the Second Proviso to Sub Article (2) of Article
311 of the Constitution of India. She submits that given the background leading
to the issuance of the said order dated 14.10.2024, the same would not
mandate an interference from this Court.
5.1 Ms. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate has
submitted that she has not been furnished with any other records, wherein, any
reason in addition to the grounds taken in the order dated 14.10.2024, was
recorded by the Superintendent of Police, Bongaigaon.
6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the
materials available on record.

Page No.# 6/11

7. The petitioner, on being arrested in connection with Bongaigaon P.S. Case
No. 318/2024 registered under Sections 331(3)/75(2)/127(2) of BNS, 2023 read
with Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012, was placed under suspension, w.e.f.
16.09.2024, vide issuance of an order dated 19.09.2024. Therefore, the
Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, considering the preliminary enquiry
report, submitted by the Additional Superintendent of Police on 15.09.2024,
proceeded to conclude that the petitioner had committed a gross misconduct
and the same had brought embarrassment to the force and affected the morale
of the members of the force. It was further concluded that the continuance of
the petitioner in the force, even after commission of such gross misconduct was
unacceptable and against the ethos of the force. Accordingly, by invoking the
provisions of Clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the
Constitution of India, as well as Rule 10(ii) of the Rules of 1964, proceeded to
impose upon the petitioner the penalty of dismissal from service, by dispensing
the enquiry required to be held in the matter.
8. The order dated 14.10.2024, issued by the Superintendent of Police,
Bongaigaon, being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow:
“ Whereas, complainant Pranati Mahato Sharma, W/O. Shri Kiran
Kr. Sharma, resident of North Bongaigaon, under Bongaigaon PS, Dist:-
Bongaigaon, lodged an FIR on 15.09.2024 at Bongaigaon Police Station
that on 15.09.2024 her 11 years old daughter was sexually assaulted by
one LNK/AB 550 Tarun Gogoi posted at North Bongaigaon PP, while victim
was alone at her home. The said LNK/AB 550 Tarun Gogoi allegedly put
the complainant's daughter on his lap and hugged her with ill intent.
When another person arrived at the complainant's house, the minor girl

Page No.# 7/11
was able to free herself from his grip. In this regard, a GDE entry was
made vide North Bongaigaon PP GDE No. 333 dated 15/09/2024, and a
case has been registered vide Bongaigaon PS Case No. 318/2024 under
Sections 331(3), 75(2), 127(2) BNS, 2023, R/Wsec10 of the POCSO Act,
2012. Accordingly, the I/O of the case WSI (P) Mayuri Sharma arrested
LNK/AB 550 Tarun Gogoi and forwarded him to judicial custody. LNK/AB
550 Tarun Gogoi has been suspended from his duties as on 16/09/2024,
vide memo no. BNGN/RO/2024/2314-15 dated 19/09/2024.
Whereas, from the enquiry so conducted and after going through
the Enquiry Report supported by the statement of the victim girl recorded
u/s 183 BNSS, prima facie, it appears that the allegations against LNK
(AB)/550 Tarun Gogoi (U/S) which are serious in nature are substantiated,
and
Whereas, the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Madhab
Gogoi vs State of Assam (WP(C) No. 4212/2020) has observed that both
the provisions of Article 311(2-b) and Rule 10(ii) of the Assam Service
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1954 empowers the disciplinary authority to
pass any such order as it deems fit, where the disciplinary authority is
satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably
practical to follow the procedure of holding the disciplinary enquiry etc. A
satisfaction has to be reached as to why it was not practicable to hold the
enquiry etc, and
Whereas, Section 47(a) of the Assam Police Act 2007, role and
functions of police is prescribed as, “to uphold and enforce the law
impartially, and to protect life, liberty, property, human rights and dignity

Page No.# 8/11
of the members of the public,” and
Whereas, the act of LNK (AB)/550 Tarun Gogoi (U/S) tantamount
to gross misconduct: such kind of act of moral turpitude has brought
embarrassment to the force and has affected the morale of the ranks and
file. His continuance in service, even after such gross misconduct involving
a minor girl, is unacceptable and against the ethos of a disciplined
uniformed service. It would send a wrong signal to society and public if
such an individual is allowed to remain in service. Other members of the
public instead of feeling protected will feel vulnerable. Public interest does
not justify his continuance in service, and
Whereas, as per provision of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution
of India, Rule 10 (ii) of the Assam services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1964 and Govt. Memo No. HMA.487/92/89-A Dated 13/12/1994 and with
due application of mind, I being the Disciplinary Authority dismiss LNK
(AB)/550 Tarun Gogoi from service w.e.f. 14.10.2024.”
9. A perusal of the said order would reveal that while the Disciplinary
Authority of the petitioner had appreciated the graveness of the allegations
leveled against the petitioner, there is no material brought on record to highlight
as to why in the considered view of the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, it
was held that it is not reasonably practicable to hold a enquiry against the
petitioner in the matter. This Court does not find any reason assigned for the
said purpose in the said order dated 14.10.2024.
10. The Disciplinary Authority had for the purpose of passing the said order,
relied upon a decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of

Page No.# 9/11
Madhab Gogoi-Vs-State of Assam [Judgment and order dated 15.10.2020,
passed in WP(C) No. 4212/2020]. This Court has perused the decision of the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Madhab Gogoi (supra) and does
not find that therein, it was mandated that no reason has to be assigned as to
why it was deemed by the Disciplinary Authority that it was not reasonably
practicable to hold an enquiry, rather in the said decision, it is seen that the Co-
ordinate Bench had found that the provisions of Clause (b) & (1) of the second
proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution, as well as Rule 10(ii) of the Rules
of 1964 to have been followed to the extent that no satisfaction was arrived at
in writing as to why it is not practicable to hold the enquiry and/or as to why it
is not expedient to hold the enquiry in the interest of security of the State.
Accordingly, the Court was of the view that the order of dismissal from service
against the petitioner would not be sustainable in law.
11. Accordingly, the interpretation placed by the Disciplinary Authority of the
petitioner in the order dated 14.10.2024, on the decision of the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Madhab Gogoi (supra), is clearly perverse.
While, it is not mandated that a notice is called to be issued to the delinquent
before holding, that it is not reasonably practical to hold an enquiry by invoking
the provisions of Clause-(b) of the Second Proviso to Article 311(2) of the
Constitution, the same is to be so substantiated by reasons assigned for the
purpose. It would not satisfy the provisions of Sub Clause-(b) of the Second
proviso to Article 311(2), to proceed to hold that it was not reasonably
practicable to hold an enquiry as contemplated under Article 311(2) of the
Constitution of India, only by noticing the seriousness of the allegations leveled
against the petitioner. It has to be brought on record either in the order itself or
in the contemporaneous records the reasons as to why such enquiry was not

Page No.# 10/11
reasonably practicable to be so held.
12. This Court having not found any such reasons recorded and the
projections made in the order dated 14.10.2024, being not germane for the
purpose of invoking the provisions of Clause-(b) to the Second Proviso to Article
311(2) of the Constitution of India and/or invoking the provisions of Rule 10(ii)
of the Rules of 1964, this Court finds that the order dated 14.10.2024, would
not mandate an acceptance from this Court.
13. It is further noticed that in the affidavit filed by the respondent
authorities also, there is no justification brought on record with regard to the
conclusions reached by the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, that it was
not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry in the matter against the
petitioner.
14. Having drawn the above conclusions, the order dated 14.10.2024 stands
set aside.
15. Having interfered with the order dated 14.10.2024, the petitioner is
directed to be reinstated in his services. However, considering the nature of the
allegations leveled against the petitioner, he is deemed to have continued under
suspension w.e.f., 14.10.2024. The petitioner would be entitled to be authorised
subsistence allowance, w.e.f. 14.10.2024. Considering the nature of allegations
leveled against the petitioner, it is provided that the disciplinary authority shall
institute disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with the
provisions of Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964
and conclude the same expeditiously. Alternatively, liberty is also provided to the
disciplinary authority of the petitioner to invoke the provisions of Clause-(b) of

Page No.# 11/11
the Second Proviso of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and/or the
provisions of Rule 10(ii) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1964, however, due reasons be recorded with regard to the satisfaction drawn
by the Disciplinary Authority as to why it is not practicable to hold an enquiry
against the petitioner, basing on the allegation of misconduct existing against
him in the matter.

16. The decision now required to be arrived at in the matter by the
Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, be so arrived at within a period of 1
(one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
17. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition
stands disposed of.


JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Pratibha
Baruah
Digitally signed by Pratibha Baruah
DN: c=IN, o=Personal, postalCode=781004, l=Kamrup
Metro, st=Assam, street=FLAT NO 204 GAUHATI HIGH COURT PRIVATE SECRETARY COMPLEX, Kharguli, Guwahati
Assam India 781004, title=3293,
2.5.4.20=71a530be2ea040bbb22c00931aced04f63e681f6c ae3635c78d478f02266cde4,
serialNumber=cb2a7c22627f9ea771f18f3983e02b66130df
764108b79dd12f3a3e40cd1d082, [email protected], cn=Pratibha Baruah
Date: 2026.05.07 15:30:58 +05'30'