Disciplinary proceedings cannot be founded on non-compliance with an attachment order already set aside.

The petitioner, a Registrar in Oncology at Gauhati Medical College and Hospital/State Cancer Institute, was directed by Government Notification dated 06.02.2020 to be attached to the Department of ENT, Silchar Medical College and Hospital and to report there.

He challenged the notification in WP(C) No. 1423/2020 and did not report at Silchar, citing illness and family constraints; he also communicated with the authorities by e-mail and applications.

On 19.02.2021, before the suspension order, he tendered his resignation, which was received by the authorities on 26.02.2021.

By order dated 16.03.2021, this Court set aside the transfer/attachment notification dated 06.02.2020 for non-compliance with the applicable statutory rules, including Rule 3(3)(ii) of the Assam Medical Education Service Rules, 2008.

Two days later, on 18.03.2021, the petitioner was placed under suspension on allegations that he had failed to report at Silchar, remained unauthorisedly absent, and had been negligent, insubordinate and guilty of gross misconduct.

Disciplinary proceedings were subsequently initiated by charge-sheet dated 13.04.2021.

The petitioner’s resignation was rejected on 05.04.2021 on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against him.

He challenged the suspension, disciplinary proceedings and rejection of his resignation in the present writ petitions.

1. Whether the suspension order dated 18.03.2021 and the consequential disciplinary proceedings could be sustained when they were substantially founded on the petitioner’s alleged non-compliance with the notification dated 06.02.2020, which had already been set aside by the Court.

2. Whether the pendency of an appeal against the order setting aside the attachment notification permitted the respondents to continue treating that notification as valid and binding.

3. Whether rejection of the petitioner’s resignation on the ground of contemplated or pending disciplinary proceedings could be sustained when the foundation of those proceedings had ceased to exist.

4. What consequential relief, if any, was the petitioner entitled to.

The Court applied Rule 3(3)(ii) of the Assam Medical Education Service Rules, 2008, under which the petitioner’s attachment/transfer had to conform to the applicable statutory requirements; the earlier order dated 16.03.2021 had already held that the notification dated 06.02.2020 was legally unsustainable.

The Court also considered Rule 3(1) of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, invoked in the charge-sheet in relation to alleged misconduct.

The governing principle applied was that an order set aside by a competent court cannot thereafter be treated as valid for imposing adverse service consequences, and mere pendency of an appeal, without a stay of the order under challenge, does not suspend or nullify its operative effect.

Consequently, disciplinary action founded substantially on non-compliance with the quashed order could not be sustained.

The Court found that the central allegation in the suspension order and charge-sheet was the petitioner’s failure to report at Silchar pursuant to the notification dated 06.02.2020.

However, before the suspension order was issued, that notification had already been set aside for violation of the applicable statutory rules.

The respondents therefore could not continue to treat the notification as a subsisting and enforceable direction or characterise non-compliance with it as misconduct.

The pendency of WA No. 110/2021 did not alter this position because no stay of the earlier order had been shown.

Since the disciplinary action substantially rested on that invalidated notification, its foundation had disappeared.

The rejection of the resignation, being based principally on the pendency of the same disciplinary proceedings, was likewise unsustainable.

The Court expressly left open any independent allegation of misconduct unconnected with the notification.

The suspension order dated 18.03.2021 and the consequential disciplinary proceedings were set aside, as was the order dated 05.04.2021 rejecting the petitioner’s resignation.

The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner and thereafter consider his resignation dated 19.02.2021 in accordance with law and pass appropriate consequential orders.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on any independent allegation of misconduct unrelated to the notification dated 06.02.2020.