APSC Exam Probe: Gauhati High Court Bars Use Of Inquiry Panel's Reports To Prosecute Candidates Citing Violation Of Procedural Safeguards

The Gauhati High Court barred the State from using findings in two reports of an inquiry commission probing alleged irregularities in appointments to Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) Combined Competitive Examinations conducted 2013 and 2014, to initiate disciplinary proceedings/prosecution against various candidates.

In doing so the court observed that the findings therein violated the candidates' rights and procedural safeguards under Sections 8B and 8C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act to be heard and to conduct cross examination.

For context Section 8B states that if at any stage of the inquiry, the Commission considers it necessary to inquire into the conduct of any person; or is of opinion that the reputation of any person is likely to be prejudicially affected by the inquiry, then it shall give to a "reasonable opportunity of being heard" to the person and to produce evidence in his defence.

Section 8C states that the appropriate Government, every person referred to in section 8B and, with the permission of the Commission, any other person whose evidence is recorded by the Commission may cross-examine a witness other than a witness produced by it or him. Further they may address the Commission and may be represented before the Commission by a legal practitioner or, with the permission of the Commission, by any other person.

Justice Devashis Baruah, in his 181 page judgment observed:

“Report, 2013 so submitted in respect to the Combined Competitive Examination, 2013 and the Report, 2014 in connection with the Combined Competitive Examination, 2014 are in violation to the mandate of Sections 8B and 8C of the Act of 1952, inasmuch as it was an obligatory duty upon the Commission to inform the Petitioners as to when evidence of the other participants would be taken and when the Petitioners would be permitted to adduce defence evidence. It was also obligatory duty cast upon the Commission to inform the Petitioners that they can participate in the said proceedings before the Commission and also engage a legal practitioner.

In the instant case, it would be seen that after submission of the written responses, the Commission of Inquiry did not find it necessary to inform the Petitioners that what evidence were being taken into consideration and when the Petitioners would be permitted to adduce defence evidence. On this count also, the Report, 2013 and Report, 2014 of the Commission violates the rights of the Petitioners under Sections 8B and 8C of the Act of 1952. The Report, 2013 and Report, 2014 clearly show that the conduct of each of the Petitioners were inquired into, and the observations, findings and recommendations so made in the Report, 2013 and Report, 2014 touched upon the reputation of each of the Petitioners prejudicially".

The case arose out of appointments made pursuant to the APSC Combined Competitive Examinations, primarily CCE 2013 and, in one case, CCE 2014. Following allegations of anomalies and malpractices in the selection process, the State of Assam constituted a One-Man Commission on July 8, 2019 to inquire into various aspects of the examinations, including the conduct of viva voce, role of APSC officials, and possible irregularities in the selection process.

The petitioners approached the High Court challenging the initiation of departmental proceedings against them on the basis of the Commission's reports. The batch of writ petitions challenged the initiation of the departmental proceedings on the basis of two reports submitted by the One Man Commission for the Combined Competitive Examination (CCE), 2013 and 2014.

The court said that the Supreme Court in Kiran Bedi & Others Vs. Committee of Inquiry & Another (1989) had held that if either Clause (a) or (b) of Section 8B of the Act was attracted, the participant to the said inquiry proceedings becomes a participant enjoying special privileges as mandated under Sections 8B and 8C of the Act of 1952.

The court said that in the present case the Petitioners though came within the purview of both the Clauses of Section 8B of the Act of 1952 but the Commission "deprived all the Petitioners their rights under Sections 8B and 8C of the Act of 1952".

“…insofar as the first point for determination is concerned, the Report, 2013 in connection with the Competitive Examination, 2013, as well as the Report, 2014 pertaining to the Combined Competitive Examination, 2014 are in flagrant violation to the rights of the Petitioners under Sections 8B and 8C of the Act of 1952,” Justice Baruah opined.

Further, while clarifying that the reports cannot be used against the petitioners,the court held:

“The Report 2013 cannot be used against the Petitioners to initiate any disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioners or any prosecution against the Petitioners. All findings observations and/or recommendations so made by the Commission in the Report, 2013 and Report, 2014 touching upon the conduct and reputation of the Petitioners prejudicially cannot be used against the Petitioners in any Forum and are rendered nonest as it violates Section 8B and Section 8C of the Act of 1952.”

The court however did not set aside the two reports, remarking that these contain various fact-finding details touching on matters of public importance and such findings, observations and recommendations may aid the Government of Assam to retrospect as well as introspect and to take any policy decision for the future.

The petitioners contended that the Commission had recorded findings affecting their conduct and reputation without complying with the requirements of Sections 8B and 8C of the Act. The State, on the other hand, submitted that the reports were in the nature of fact-finding and that departmental proceedings could continue on other materials.

The Court opined that the Commission had violated the rights of the Petitioners under Section 8B and Section 8C of the Act of 1952 while making the inquiries in respect to the Combined Competitive Examination, 2013 and Combined Competitive Examination, 2014 and thus the Report, 2013 and Report, 2014 are in violation to the mandatory provisions of Section 8B and Section 8C of the Act of 1952.

On the issue of suspension, the Court observed, “an order of suspension can only be stayed in an extreme case, as it amounts to finally disposing the issue of suspension even without giving an opportunity to the other side.”

It further directed:

1. The Respondent State/Disciplinary Authority would be at liberty to proceed with the Disciplinary Proceedings initiated against the Petitioners on the basis of the Show Cause Notices and Statements of the Allegations served upon the Petitioners. However, the Respondent State/Disciplinary Authority shall proceed with the Disciplinary proceedings without relying and/or referring to any observation, finding and/or recommendations made by the Commission which touches upon the conduct and reputation of the Petitioners in the Report, 2013 and Report, 2014, as the case may be.

2. The second paragraph of the Show Cause Notices as well as the second paragraph of the Statements of the Allegations issued against each Petitioner stand stricken off. The Extracts of the Report, 2013 or the Report, 2014 which were furnished as list of Documents to the Petitioners cannot be relied and/or referred to by the Respondent State/Disciplinary Authority.

3. In the circumstance, the Disciplinary Authority/Respondent State wishes to include additional documents and/or provide the list of witnesses, the Petitioners having already submitted their Statement of Defence have to be provided with an opportunity to file additional Statement of Defence alongwith documents, if so advised. The Petitioners would be at liberty to raise such further or other defences as permissible under law in their additional Statement of Defence.

4. The liberty so granted to the Disciplinary Authority/Respondent State is limited to be exercised within 45 days from the date of the court's judgment. It is observed that if the Disciplinary Authorities fail to provide the additional documents and/or list of witnesses to the Petitioners within the time stipulated, the Disciplinary proceedings shall proceed in accordance with law on the basis of the observations made.

5. For the period of 45 (forty-five) days from the court's judgment, the Disciplinary Proceedings shall therefore remain stalled thereby enabling the Respondent State/Disciplinary Authority to provide the additional documents and/or provide the list of witnesses.

6. For the sake of clarity, the court observed, that as the Disciplinary Proceedings against the Petitioners are yet to be decided on merits, the court's directions shall not preclude the Disciplinary Authorities/Respondent State to drop the present impugned Disciplinary Proceedings initiated against the Petitioners and initiate fresh Disciplinary Proceedings, if so advised.

7. It observed that in the circumstances fresh Disciplinary Proceedings are initiated, the Disciplinary Authority/Respondent State cannot refer and/or rely upon the observations, findings and recommendations made by the Commission against the Petitioners in the Report, 2013 and Report, 2014.
However the liberty granted to the Respondent State/Disciplinary Authority to drop the impugned Disciplinary Proceedings and initiate fresh Disciplinary Proceedings shall have to be exercised within 45 days from the date of this judgment, failing which the authority shall have to proceed with the Disciplinary Proceedings in the manner directed in the order.

8. The Notifications whereby the Petitioners have been suspended are not interfered with. However, it directed the Respondent Authorities to carry out periodical reviews as to whether the continuation of the suspension of the Petitioners are necessary in public interest.

The petitions were disposed of.

Case Name: Aoicharjya Jibon Baruah v. State of Assam

Case Number: WP(C)/1380/2025

Click Here To Read Judgement