Absi, Vinod Kumar Prasad vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors

Page No.# 1/9
GAHC010118462025

2026:GAU-AS:12327
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

WP(C) N O . 3289 OF 2025

ABSI, Vinod Kumar Prasad,
th
Age- 54 years, 27 Assam Police Battalion,
Khajuabeel, Udalguri,
S/o Hiralal Prasad,
Village- Khajuabeel,
P.O. & P.S.- Koupati,
District- Udalguri, Assam,
PIN- 784116
…… Petitioner ..

- Versus -

1. The State of Assam, represented by the Commissioner and
Secretary, Home and Political Department.

2. The Director General of Police, Ulubari, Assam, Guwahati-781007
3. Inspector General of Police (T&AP), Ulubari, Assam, Guwahati-
781007
th
4. The Commandant 27 Assam Police Battalion, Khajuabeel, Udalguri,
Assam, PIN-784521.

…… Respondents ..

For the Petitioner : Mr. S. Chauhan, Advocate.

Page No.# 2/9

For respondents : Ms. M. Bhattacharjee,
Senior Government Advocate.

- BEFORE-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO

Date of hearing : 27.08.2026.
Date of Judgment & Order : 27.08.2026 .

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. S Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M
Bhattacharjee, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents.
[2.] Facts of the case in brief is that a Show-Cause Notice was issued to the
th
petitioner on 10.07.2024 by the Commandant, 27 Assam Police Battalion
(respondent No. 4) requiring the petitioner to Show-Cause, as to why
appropriate penalty under the Assam Police Manual should not be inflicted upon
him following the charge based on the statement of allegation attached to the
Show-Cause Notice. The statement of allegation was to the effect that one Sri
Raushan Jalal, APS the then Adjutant was entrusted to conduct an enquiry into
the authenticity of some railway warrants issued against Hav. Ranjit Sarmah,
Hav. Ranjit Gowala, Hav. Uday Rajbongshi and Const. 269 Rajeswar Ray of the

Page No.# 3/9
Unit. From the enquiry report submitted, it was revealed that the petitioner had
used the names of these persons for issuing fake railway warrant for travelling
from Guwahati to Buxar, Buxar to Guwahati, Balia to Guwahati and Buxar to
Guwahati respectively using fake Reserve Inspector seal, while signing as
Reserve Inspector on various occasions. The said act tantamount to gross
indiscipline conduct, moral turpitude and gross misconduct, rendering him unfit
to retain in Assam Police. Alongwith the allegations, a list of prosecution
witnesses and the list of documents sought to be relied upon were also
enclosed.
[3.]
Pursuant to the Show-Cause Notice, an Enquiry Officer was appointed
alongwith a Presenting Officer for conducting the departmental enquiry, vide
Order, dated 22.08.2024.
[4.] Upon conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted the
enquiry report and the petitioner, while being given a copy of the enquiry report
was asked to Show-Cause from the findings of the enquiry report, vide
Communication, dated 10.01.2025. It was also indicated that the representation
to be submitted by the petitioner should reach the disciplinary authority within a
period of 10 (ten) days from the receipt of the Communication. Although the
nd
petitioner submitted his reply to the 2 Show-Cause Notice, dated 10.01.2025,

Page No.# 4/9
the disciplinary authority decided to impose upon him a major penalty of
stoppage of 2 (two) annual service increments from the next date of increment
without cumulative effect, vide Order, dated 29.01.2025. Although the petitioner
preferred an Appeal against the same, his Appeal came to be rejected by the
Appellate Authority, vide Order, dated 10.04.2025 by upholding the Order
passed by the disciplinary authority. Aggrieved, the petitioner is before this
Court.
[5.] Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant
to the Show-Cause Notice, dated 10.07.2024, the petitioner was not furnished
with the documents listed in the statement of allegation and therefore, he could
not go through the documents and its contents and the same amounts to
violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not allowed to
cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, which again amounts to violation of
the principles of natural justice and also violation of Article 311 of the
nd
Constitution of India. He further submits that alongwith the 2 Show-Cause
Notice, dated 10.01.2025, the report of the Enquiry Officer was enclosed, but
the evidence of the witnesses were not enclosed and thereby depriving the
petitioner from submitting an effective reply to the enquiry report.
[6.]
The learned counsel submits that the petitioner was also denied of

Page No.# 5/9
having a Defence Assistant during the departmental proceedings. The learned
counsel also submits that during the preliminary enquiry, the petitioner’s
signature was obtained by force, as he was threatened that if he did not put his
signature, he would be terminated from his service. The learned counsel
therefore, submits that the impugned Order, dated 29.01.2025 as well as the
appellate Order, dated 10.04.2025 should be set aside. In support of his
submissions, he has relied upon the cases of (i) Punjab National Bank &
Ors. v. K.K. Verma , (2010) 13 SCC 494, and (ii) Union of India & Ors. v.
S.K. Kapoor , (2011) 4 SCC 589.
[7.]
Per contra, Ms. Bhattacharjee, learned Senior Government Advocate for
the respondents submits that the petitioner was supplied with all the relevant
materials, which was indicated in the Show-Cause Notice, dated 10.01.2025 and
therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he was not given the relevant
documents is not correct. She also submits that in fact, the petitioner had
admitted to the charge when his statement was recorded on 11.01.2025. In this
connection, the learned State Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to
the impugned Order, dated 29.01.2025, wherein at paragraph No. 2, it is
provided that the petitioner admitted the whole act being done by him in his
statement, dated 11.01.2025.

Page No.# 6/9
[8.]
The learned State Counsel has also produced the departmental records
and she has read out the statement of the petitioner, dated 11.01.2025 to the
Court. Although the same is recorded in vernacular, but the learned State
Counsel has translated the same to the Court. The learned State Counsel has
also denied the averment of the petitioner that he was denied the chance of
cross-examining the witnesses. She submits that as per the records, it is clear
that such opportunity was given to the petitioner and he simply declined to
cross-examine the witnesses. She therefore, submits that the averment of the
petitioner in this regard is not true, since he was given the opportunity to cross-
examine the departmental witnesses, if he so desires.
[9.]
Referring to paragraph No. 10 of the affidavit-in-opposition, the learned
State Counsel submits that the State respondents deny the averment of the
petitioner that he was not given the chance to cross-examine the prosecution
witnesses. She submits that there were 5 (five) numbers of prosecution
witnesses named in the Show-Cause Notice and 5 (five) documents sought to
be relied upon by the prosecution. The same was duly received by the petitioner
on 26.07.2024 and therefore, the grievance of the petitioner that he did not
receive the list of documents is unfounded. She also submits that the enquiry
report was furnished to the petitioner, enabling him to make a representation
and there was no requirement on the part of the respondent authorities to

Page No.# 7/9
furnish him documents and depositions of witnesses alongwith the enquiry
report, since the petitioner himself has participated in the enquiry proceedings.
In fact, what has been relied upon by the Enquiry Officer has already been
mentioned in the Show-Cause Notice, dated 10.07.2024. She thus submits that
despite the admission on the part of the petitioner to the charges, departmental
proceeding was conducted and the charges proved. Considering the nature of
misconduct committed by him, it cannot be said that the penalty imposed is
disproportionate. She thus submits that the writ petition has no merit and the
same should be dismissed.
[10.]
I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the
rival parties and have also perused the materials available on record.
[11.] The petitioner has primarily taken the stand that he has not been
given sufficient opportunity during the departmental proceedings. The fact that
the petitioner has admitted to the charge and to the allegation is discernible
from the records, which was read out and translated by the State Counsel.
Further, the impugned Order, dated 29.01.2025 also provides that the petitioner
in his statement, dated 11.01.205 has admitted to the whole act done by him.
The petitioner has also taken the stand that he has been denied of cross-
examining the departmental witnesses. However, the same has also been

Page No.# 8/9
established to be not true from the records produced by the learned State
Counsel, since the petitioner himself had clearly denied to cross-examine the
witnesses. The Show-Cause Notice, dated 10.07.2024 also provides for 5 (five)
departmental witnesses to be prosecution witnesses to proof the charge
alongwith list of 5 (five) documents sought to be relied upon. It is the specific
stand taken by the department that the petitioner was furnished with such
documents in their affidavit-in-opposition.
[12.] The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of
Punjab National Bank (supra) to contend that he was not furnished with the
relevant documents prior to imposition of the penalty. The said decision,
however, is with regard to non-supply of enquiry report, which is not the case in
the present writ petition. The petitioner was indeed supplied with the enquiry
report and to which he has submitted his reply as well.
[13.] Further, the case of Union of India (supra) with the given facts of the
present case is also found to be not applicable, in view of the fact that the
petitioner has been supplied with the documents sought to be relied upon,
which can be seen from the Show-Cause Notice, dated 10.07.2024.
[14.] In so far as the contention of the petitioner that he was not given a
Defence Assistant, the same has not been disputed by the respondent

Page No.# 9/9
authorities. It, however, appears that the petitioner had not asked for a Defence
Assistant during the enquiry proceedings, and the non-appointment of a
Defence Assistant per se cannot be the reason to vitiate the departmental
proceedings under the given facts and circumstances of the case since the
petitioner has admitted to his misconduct and that he has not been able to
show that prejudice has been caused to him. As already stated, the petitioner
rather himself had admitted of having committed the misconduct in his recorded
statement, dated 11.01.2025.
[15.] Under this circumstance, this Court is of the considered view that no
prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner for non-
appointment of a Defence Assistant. Thus upon having regard to the case in its
entirety, this Court finds that the petitioner cannot be said to have a legitimate
grievance and accordingly, the writ petition is found to be without merit and the
same is dismissed. No cost.



JUDGE

Comparing Assistant