Meghalaya High Court
Shri. Ashok Kumar Roy vs The State Of Meghalaya Through The on 30 June, 2025
Author: H. S. Thangkhiew
Bench: H. S. Thangkhiew
2025:MLHC:552
Serial No. 64
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 404 of 2024 Date of Decision: 30.06.2025
Shri. Ashok Kumar Roy
S/o Late Brahamdeo Roy :::Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The State of Meghalaya through the
Commissioner and Secretary, to the
Government of Meghalaya,
Home Department, Shillong
2.The Director, Office of the Director
of Higher and Technical Education, Shillong
3.Lady Keane College, Shillong,
East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya
4.The Principal, Lady Keane College, Shillong,
East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya
5.The Secretary, Governing Body of the Lady
Keane College, Shillong, East Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya :::Respondents
1
2025:MLHC:552
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. K. Paul, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. S. Chanda, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mrs. T. Yangi. B, AAG with
Ms. Z.E.Nongkynrih,GA(For R 1&2)
Mr. S. Sen, Adv. (For R 3-5).
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. By this second round of litigation, the petitioner is before this Court
assailing a Memorandum dated 18.10.2024, whereby a fresh inquiry
against the petitioner in respect of same and similar allegations which was
subject matter of WP(C) No. 146 of 2024, which was decided on
09.09.2024, has been proposed. The present writ petition is based on the
sole ground that in view of the directions of this Court passed in WP(C)
No. 146 of 2024, the respondent College is estopped from initiating fresh
2
2025:MLHC:552
proceedings in respect of the allegations which have already been covered
by the inquiry report dated 25.11.2006.
2. Mr. K. Paul, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Chanda,
learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Court by the order
dated 09.09.2024, in WP(C) No. 146 of 2024, at Para – 7 thereof, of the
said judgment had issued explicit directions to the respondents No. 3, 4 and
5, to complete the delayed disciplinary proceedings based on the inquiry
report dated 25.11.2006, within a period of 6(six) weeks. However, he
submits the respondents instead of adhering or complying with the same
have instead by the impugned Memorandum dated 18.10.2024, proposed to
conduct a fresh inquiry which is perverse and violative of the directions
passed by this Court. It is further submitted that even a cursory
examination of the inquiry report would reflect that the writ petitioner has
nowhere been seen or held to be complicit or culpable with the alleged
misappropriation and forgery that had occurred in the College of the
respondents No. 3, 4 and 5.
3. The learned Senior counsel submits that the action of the respondents
No. 3, 4 and 5 in not concluding the inquiry in the stipulated time period,
cannot be condoned, as also the illegal act of initiating a fresh inquiry on
the same allegations for which an inquiry had already been faced by the
writ petitioner. He therefore prays that the impugned Memorandum dated
3
2025:MLHC:552
18.10.2024, and the disciplinary proceedings as far as the writ petition is
concerned be set aside and quashed.
4. Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel for the respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 who
are the main answering respondents, has submitted that the respondents felt
the need for a fresh inquiry, inasmuch as, the writ petitioner is party to
grave misconduct, which is criminal in nature, and that the earlier inquiry
though gone into, the report was found to be inadequate and lacking, when
the same was placed before the Governing Body of the College. He
submits that it was on this consideration that the same was not acted upon
and the decision taken to go for a fresh inquiry. He then submits that the
criminal case that was registered against the writ petitioner is still pending
before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and the same is at the
stage of evidence. The learned counsel on another limb of submission, has
contended that delay in the conduct of disciplinary proceedings is not a
ground for quashing the same, especially taking into account the
seriousness of the alleged misconduct. In support of his submissions, the
learned counsel has cited the following two decisions:
(i) Secretary, Ministry of Defence & Ors. vs. Prabhash
Chandra Mirdha, (2012) 11 SCC 565
(ii) Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India &
Ors. vs. A. Masilamani, (2013) 6 SCC 5304
2025:MLHC:552
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Before addressing the issues
raised in the present petition, this Court considers it expedient for the sake
of convenience to reproduce the entire order dated 09.09.2024, passed in
WP(C) No. 146 of 2024, hereinbelow:
Serial No. 03 HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Regular List AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 146 of 2024
Date of order: 09.09.2024
Ashok Kumar Roy
...Petitioner
- Versus -
1. The State of Meghalaya,
through the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of
Meghalaya, Home Department, Shillong.
2. The Director,
Office of the Director of Higher and Technical Education,
Shillong.
3. Lady Keane College,
Shillong, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.
4. The Principal,
Lady Keane College,
Shillong, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.
5. The Secretary,
Governing Body of the Lady Keane College, Shillong,
East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya
…Respondents
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S. Thangkhiew, Chief Justice (Acting)
5
2025:MLHC:552Appearance:
For the Petitioner : Mrs. R. Dutta, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mrs. T. Yangi B., AAG with
Mrs. I. Lyngwa, GA [For R1&2]
Mr. S. Sen, Adv. [For R 3-5]
i) Whether approved for Yes/No
reporting in Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
(ORAL)
The writ petitioner, by way of the instant petition has prayed for
recall and withdrawal of the suspension order dated 10.08.2026 as also the
eviction notice dated 26.02.2024 issued by the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5.
2. It appears that the writ petitioner, who was appointed as a Lower
Division Assistant (LDA) was placed under suspension as far back as in
09.06.2006, whereafter, a departmental inquiry had been instituted. As the
allegations were of a criminal nature with regard to misappropriation and
forgery, an FIR was also filed and cases were registered which are still
pending before the court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class in GR Case
No. 68 of 2007, which is reported is in the stage of evidence.
3. This Court notes and on the submission of the parties that though
the disciplinary proceedings were initiated as far back as in 2006, the same
is yet to be concluded or any orders passed thereon by the disciplinary
authorities. Photocopy of the records have been produced today by learned
6
2025:MLHC:552counsel for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 which on perusal thereof, shows
that an inquiry report had been submitted as far back as on 25.11.2006.
However, after the said inquiry, no further action was taken by the
respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 and it has been submitted that due to the
pendency of the criminal case, no action has been taken by the respondent
Nos. 3, 4 and 5 against the petitioner.
4. Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 on
being queried by the Court as to the long delay, has prayed that three
months’ time be allowed to the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 to conclude the
proceedings, inasmuch as, the charges against the delinquent employees
are of serious nature. He reiterates his submission that the delay was not
deliberate but due to the criminal proceedings that are under way.
5. Mrs. R. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on
the long inordinate and unexplained delay, the disciplinary proceedings are
liable to be quashed forthwith and the petitioner be reinstated in service
with all back wages. She further submits that even the inquiry that had been
conducted was not in accordance with set procedure, inasmuch as, the writ
petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to defend himself. Therefore,
learned counsel prays that the disciplinary proceedings as also the eviction
notice be quashed and that the petitioner be reinstated.
7
2025:MLHC:552
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
the records produced by learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5,
it seems that the charges against the writ petitioner amongst others is for
fraudulent encashment of cheques of the college funds from the Canara
Bank extension counter. The records further show that the writ petitioner
amongst the other employees stated to be involved, had been summoned and
their statements had been recorded. The inquiry report dated 25.11.2006
was thereafter submitted to the authorities but the same has not seen the
light of the day till date.
7. On these circumstances, and considering the nature of the
infraction as alleged, as also the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the inquiry was not as per the procedure, this Court at this
stage directs the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5, to complete the said inquiry
proceedings based on the inquiry report dated 25.11.2006 within a period
of six weeks from today. It is also provided that any proposed action shall
be communicated to the writ petitioner, who shall thereafter be afforded
opportunity to represent against the same. This order has been passed on
the circumstances of the case and the nature of the charges which have been
drawn up against the writ petitioner and the other employees who have
been similarly charged, and undergoing criminal trial.
8
2025:MLHC:552
8. It may be added herein that on the prayer of the non-payment of
subsistence allowance, it has been submitted both by Mrs. T. Yangi, B.,
learned AAG and Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3, 4
and 5 that the release of the same is subject to the funds which are made
available to the college. The respondents, however, are directed to ensure
that there is no delay in the payment of the subsistence allowance to the
petitioner while the matter is still under consideration.
9. With the above direction, writ petition stands disposed of.
Chief Justice (Acting)
6. A perusal of the above noted order especially Para – 7 thereof,
reflects that though the inquiry was of the year 2006, and the inquiry report
generated on 25.11.2006, this Court though the proceedings stood
unconcluded and thus was inordinately delayed, had allowed the
respondents to take the matter further, and to conclude the proceedings
within a stipulated time frame of 6(six) weeks from the date of the order.
However, it appears instead of concluding the proceedings, the respondents
by the impugned notification dated 18.10.2024, have sought to institute
fresh proceedings against the writ petitioner, on the same Articles of
charge, for which the earlier inquiry had been initiated and had culminated
in the inquiry report.
9
2025:MLHC:552
7. Suffice it to say that the respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 have apart from
sitting over an inquiry since 2006, and in spite of the orders of this Court
initiating a fresh inquiry, instead of completing the same within 6(six)
weeks, have acted in a way that is irrational, and in fact, in violation of the
orders of this Court.
8. In these circumstances therefore, in view of the severe shortcomings
of the respondents No. 3, 4 and 5, the impugned Memorandum dated
18.10.2024, as far as it relates to the petitioner stands quashed. This
however, will have no bearing in the pending criminal proceedings before
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shillong, which is stated to be at the stage of
evidence.
9. The judgments placed by the learned counsel for the respondents No.
3, 4 and 5 being on a different footing are not discussed or elaborated upon.
10. The writ petition is thus allowed and accordingly disposed of.
Judge
Meghalaya
30.06.2025
“D.Thabah-PS”
Signature Not Verified 10
Digitally signed by DARIHUN
THABAH
Date: 2025.06.30 04:37:45 IST