Employees Who Gave Up Challenge To Parallel Departmental & Criminal Proceedings Can Challenge Fresh Disciplinary Action: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court has clarified that its earlier direction debarring certain employees from challenging the parallel continuation of departmental and criminal proceedings applies only to the proceedings that were the subject matter of the earlier litigation. It does not prevent them from independently challenging fresh departmental proceedings initiated by the State after dropping the earlier ones.

Justice Devashis Baruah clarified that where an authority acts upon liberty granted by the Court and initiates fresh proceedings, a new cause of action arises. Such proceedings shall be examined independently on their own merits.

The High Court made the observation while rejecting a batch of review petitions seeking review of its April 1, 2026 judgment in Aoicharjya Jibon Baruah v. State of Assam & Others (2026). The review applicants had sought modification of paragraph 139(xii) of that judgment which stated that the petitioners having given up their challenge to the parallel continuation of departmental and criminal proceedings would be debarred from raising the contention in future.

The dispute arose from departmental proceedings initiated against the employees in connection with allegations examined by a One-Man Commission of Inquiry which had submitted reports in 2013 and 2014. In the earlier judgment, the High Court had held that the reports violated Sections 8B and 8C of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952. It permitted the State to continue the departmental proceedings but directed that the findings and recommendations of the Commission could not be relied upon. The Court also granted the State liberty to drop the existing proceedings and initiate fresh ones within 45 days.

The State subsequently dropped the existing departmental proceedings and issued fresh show-cause notices. The review applicants apprehended that paragraph 139(xii) of the earlier judgment would prevent them from challenging the fresh proceedings on the ground that departmental and criminal proceedings were continuing simultaneously. They therefore sought deletion or modification of the direction, contending that it imposed an absolute bar on their right to raise the issue in future.

The State opposed the review petitions, arguing that the applicants had voluntarily abandoned the challenge to parallel proceedings during the earlier litigation and could not now seek to reopen the same issue through review.

Examining the record, the High Court noted that the applicants had given up their challenge to the parallel continuation of proceedings in respect of the then-existing departmental proceedings and show-cause notices. Their abandonment of the contention would operate as an estoppel against raising the same issue again in relation to the same cause of action.

However, the Court distinguished the fresh proceedings initiated by the State after dropping the earlier ones. It held that these proceedings constituted a fresh cause of action which was not before the Court when it delivered the April 1 judgment.

The Court observed:

“A direction is therefore to be construed as a direction in respect of the cause of action then before the Court and not as a free-standing direction operating on every subsequent state of affairs.”

It further clarified that where the Court grants liberty to an authority and the authority acts upon it by bringing about a new order or a changed set of facts, a fresh cause of action arises. Such a cause of action must be adjudicated independently and on its own merits.

The High Court, however, found no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of paragraph 139(xii). It held that the petitioner's apprehension that the earlier direction had foreclosed their right to challenge the fresh departmental proceedings was misconceived.

Accordingly, the Court rejected all the review petitions.

Counsel for the Review Applicants: A. Choudhury, Senior Advocate, assisted by Imsenkala and T. Deuri, Advocates.

Counsel for the Respondents: N. Kohli, Senior Advocate; D. Nath, Senior Government Advocate; and S.P. Das, Standing Counsel for Employment and Cooperative and Craftsman.