Gauhati HC expunges adverse findings against two APSC 2013 candidates, citing denial of hearing and cross-examination rights

The petitioners participated in the Assam Public Service Commission’s Combined Competitive Examination, 2013, whose final result was published on 12.05.2015.

Sunayana Aidew was selected and subsequently served as Superintendent of Taxes, while Ka Vita Das was selected for the Assam Police Service and served as a Deputy Superintendent of Police.

Following allegations of anomalies and malpractices in the examination and selection process, the State constituted a One-Man Commission of Inquiry under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, headed by Justice (Retd.) B.K. Sarma.

Notices were issued to both petitioners, who submitted written responses.

During the Commission’s proceedings, Dr. Mrigen Saikia made statements and filed an affidavit containing allegations which, according to the petitioners, were subsequently relied upon in recording adverse observations against them.

The Commission submitted its Report on 02.04.2022.

The petitioners challenged the adverse observations and findings concerning them, particularly those appearing at pages 505 and 509, after the Report was laid before the Legislative Assembly and entered the public domain.

Whether the Commission’s adverse observations, findings and recommendations concerning the petitioners could be sustained when they were not afforded an effective opportunity to respond to subsequent material relied upon by the Commission or to cross-examine the concerned witness under Sections 8-B and 8-C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.

Whether the impugned portions of the Commission’s Report were liable to be quashed or expunged without setting aside the Report in its entirety.

Sections 8-B and 8-C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 require that a person whose conduct is being inquired into, or whose reputation is likely to be prejudicially affected, be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and of producing evidence in defence; Section 8-C additionally protects the right to cross-examine witnesses, address the Commission and be represented by a legal practitioner.

The Court relied on Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry, (1989) 1 SCC 494, and State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani, (2003) 8 SCC 361, for the principle that adverse findings affecting a person’s reputation cannot be made without compliance with these procedural safeguards and the principles of natural justice.

It also relied on Sanjay Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 5 SCC 283, and the coordinate Bench’s judgment dated 01.04.2026, which held that findings prejudicially touching a person’s conduct or reputation are subject to Sections 8-B and 8-C.

Relying on Goa Foundation v. Union of India, (2014) 6 SCC 590, the Court held that procedural invalidity affecting individual findings did not require quashing the entire report where the report also contained broader fact-finding and remedial recommendations of public importance.

The Court held that the petitioners’ initial written responses did not constitute sufficient compliance with Sections 8-B and 8-C in respect of material subsequently brought on record and relied upon against them.

Since the statements and affidavit of Dr. Mrigen Saikia were capable of adversely affecting the petitioners’ reputation, the Commission was required to provide them an effective opportunity to respond and, where applicable, to exercise their right of cross-examination.

The failure to provide these safeguards amounted to a violation of the statutory protections and natural justice.

However, consistent with the coordinate Bench’s approach, the Court distinguished between the Report as a whole and the specific adverse findings against the petitioners.

The broader report concerning examination irregularities and remedial measures was therefore not invalidated in its entirety.

Those observations, findings and recommendations were accordingly expunged and directed not to be used or relied upon against the petitioners in any proceeding or before any forum.

Both writ petitions were disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.