Disciplinary Proceeding Is Vitiated if Charge Memo and Reply Are Not Approved by Disciplinary Authority

The petitioner, a Professor and former Director of the Gauhati University Institute of Distance and Open Learning (GUIDOL), was removed from service via an order dated 06.10.2021.

The removal followed a disciplinary proceeding initiated after a 2018 Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report highlighted 21 unapproved courses run by GUIDOL during 2010–2017.

An inquiry commission headed by Dr. Justice Aftab Hussain Saikia recommended actions against several officials, including the Vice-Chancellor and Registrars.

However, the University singled out the petitioner, appointing an Inquiry Officer (IO) on 08.06.2021, prior to the formal issuance of a charge-sheet on 22.06.2021.

The petitioner challenged the removal on grounds of procedural illegality, perversity of findings, and violation of natural justice.

1. Whether the Inquiry Officer was appointed in contravention of Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, by being appointed prior to the filing of the charge-sheet.

2. Whether the charge-sheet was non-est due to lack of approval by the Disciplinary Authority (Executive Council).

3. Whether the finding of "misconduct" was sustainable given the University’s prior admission that the unapproved courses were a "bona-fide error of judgment".

4. Whether the availability of an alternative remedy (appeal to the Chancellor) barred the writ petition.

The court primarily applied Rules 7, 9, and 15 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, which mandate that a disciplinary authority must frame charges and consider the delinquent's written statement before appointing an inquiry officer.

Precedent in Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath (2014) establishes that a charge-sheet is non-est if not specifically approved by the Disciplinary Authority.

Doctrine from Union of India v. J. Ahmed (1979) ruling that "error of judgment" or "negligence" does not necessarily constitute misconduct unless there is a breach of a specific code of conduct.

Alternative remedies do not bar writ jurisdiction if principles of natural justice are violated, as per Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks (1998).

The Court found that the University "put the cart before the horse" by resolving to appoint an Inquiry Officer on 08.06.2021, two weeks before the charge-sheet was even served on 22.06.2021, violating the mandatory sequence in Rule 9(4) of the 1964 Rules.

Applying the doctrine of non-traverse, the Court noted the University failed to deny that the Executive Council never sat to approve the specific articles of charge, rendering the entire proceeding non-est under the B.V. Gopinath and Sunny Abraham standards.

The Court deemed the IO’s findings perverse as they relied on extraneous allegations not present in the original charge-memo.

The Court held the petitioner was a "scapegoat" because the Saikia Commission recommended action against the Vice-Chancellor and Registrars, yet only the petitioner was targeted.

Since the University had officially termed the lapse a "bona-fide error of judgment" in 2019, the court held that, per J. Ahmed, such an error cannot be camouflaged as "misconduct" to justify removal.

The Court set aside and quashed the removal order dated 06.10.2021 and ordered the immediate reinstatement of Dr. Kandarpa Das with all consequential service benefits, provided he had not yet reached the age of superannuation.