KHAGENDRA NATH BURAGOHAIN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We proceed to determine the appeal with the following preface. In Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works, 1863 143 ER 414, the principles of natural justice was traced to the date of creation of the human race by recording that even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defence. This principle gained significance and shades with the passage of time. Notice is the first limb of this principle, as any unilateral administrative action may per se involve civil consequences. The issuance of Notice being an indispensable part of the principle, the said Notice cannot be conceived as an empty formality but must be precise and unambiguous so as to apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. This is the minimum protection that is to be granted to an individual before a quasi judicial and administrative authority decides upon any issue that may perhaps affect the rights.

(2.) The three appellants are all retired Government employees who had served as Commissioner of Excise during different periods of time. The necessity for instituting the present appeal is a fall-out of the judgment and order dated 28.06.2013 passed in WP(C) 2856 of 2012. In the said writ petition the primary issue was with regard to an order passed by the State Respondent directing temporary closure of a Bar (IMFL 'ON' in short). During the course of the proceeding an issue came to fore involving thirteen instances where 'ON' licences were allowed to be converted to 'OFF' licenses despite there being no statutory provisions under the Assam Excise Rules, 1945 permitting such conversion.

(3.) Under the directions of the Court dated 24.8.2012 an enquiry was set in motion for apprising the Court of the steps proposed to be taken by the Government against the Excise officials prima facie responsible for violation of the laws while granting liquor license in Guwahati city. The Report of the administrative enquiry dated 30.01.2013 is the moot point leading to filing of this appeal. This Report of the Enquiry Officer was referred to and relied upon while rendering the judgment and order dated 24.08.2012 in WP(C) 2856/2012. At paragraph 76 of the judgment the Court recorded that the Enquiry Officer had pointed out thirteen cases with regard to conversion of IMFL 'ON' licence to 'OFF' licence after 18.03.2005, an act which is beyond the scope of the Excise Act and the Rules. Further, the same was also in violation of the Government decision dated 29.11.2001. Referring to the Report, it was also recorded that the Enquiry Officer had clearly pointed out the role of the then Excise Minister, the Departmental Commissioner & Secretary as well as the Departmental Secretary of having been party to such unauthorised action. Initiation of disciplinary steps against the erring officials as well as a closer examination of the Report to ascertain the criminal culpability of the key players was found to be imperative as the said officials were answerable for their actions. The thirteen conversion cases, as illustrated in paragraph 77 of the judgment, makes mention of the names of the present appellants, amongst others.