JUDGMENT : KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J. 1. Heard Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati University, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 2. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner is assailing, inter alia, the departmental proceedings initiated against him pursuant to the Memorandum Of Charges dated 23.10.2024 and the impugned Resolution dated 21.03.2025 of the Executive Council of the respondent University, whereby the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer was accepted. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner, during his service tenure at Bhattadev University (on lien from Gauhati University) as Registrar on probation, was arrested on 06.08.2022 in connection with the alleged acceptance of bribe money of Rs. 50,000/- in front of a pre- trapped team of Assam Police in ACB P.S. Case No. 24/2022 u/s 7 (a) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended). The writ petitioner, after being released from Bhattadev University w.e.f. 01.02.2023, joined his parent Gauhati University on 26.07.2024; however, on the very same day, he was placed under suspension. Thereafter, departmental proceedings have been initiated by the respondent University against the writ petitioner by issuing Memorandum of Charges dated 23.10.2024. After receipt of the written statement of defence on 04.11.2024, an Inquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the charges leveled against the writ petitioner. During the pendency of the said disciplinary proceeding, the writ petitioner filed a writ petition before this court bearing WP(C) No. 351/2025 seeking the assistance of a legal practitioner to defend him before the Inquiry Officer. 4. In the said writ proceedings, this court vide judgment & order dated 27.01.2025 directed that in the event the petitioner has not been able to cross-examine the three witnesses as alleged on 16.01.2025, the Inquiry Officer should consider giving an opportunity to the writ petitioner to cross-examine them in the departmental proceeding. It is the specific case of the writ petitioner that despite the aforesaid direction of this court, the writ petitioner was not granted the opportunity to cross-examine the three prosecution witnesses. It is the specific case of the writ petitioner that despite the aforesaid direction of this court, the writ petitioner was not granted the opportunity to cross-examine the three prosecution witnesses. It is the further specific case of the writ petitioner that the Inquiry Officer completed the proceedings in violation of the rules of natural justice and recommended thereof the dismissal of the writ petitioner, which was mechanically accepted by the disciplinary authority and thereafter issued the second show-cause notice for proposed imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service. Situated thus, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, submits that the Inquiry Officer, despite the direction of this court to grant an opportunity to cross- examine the three prosecution witnesses, did not give such a fresh opportunity. He further submits that the writ petitioner, though, had prayed before the Inquiry Officer by his representation dated 06.01.2025 for 14 (fourteen) days' time to find a defence assistant for his assistance in the departmental proceedings; however, only a period of 7 (seven) days was granted. He further submits that pursuant to the list of witnesses appended with the memorandum of charges, two witnesses have been subsequently added, and in fact on 27.01.2025, during the inquiry proceedings, another witness, to the utter surprise of the writ petitioner, was brought in as a prosecution witness. He accordingly submits that the element of bias is writ large in the departmental proceedings, and hence the inquiry is vitiated. He further submits that the Inquiry Officer at the time of submitting the inquiry report had acted as an adjudicator instead of inquiring into the matter and recommended the proposed punishment to the disciplinary authority. He further submits that the Executive Council, being the disciplinary authority by resolution dated 21.03.2025, had already accepted the recommendation of dismissal of the petitioner as stated in the inquiry report dated 13.02.2025 and presumed the guilt of the writ petitioner even before the writ petitioner had the chance to defend his case before the Executive Council. He further submits that the same indicates a premeditated mind, rendering the entire submission of reply by the writ petitioner an empty formality. He further submits that the same indicates a premeditated mind, rendering the entire submission of reply by the writ petitioner an empty formality. In support of the aforesaid submission, he relies upon the following decisions: - (i) Ajit Bezbaruah v. State of Assam & Ors ., in WP (C) No. 6914/2018 (Gauhati High Court) (ii) On the Death of Anirban Roy his Legal Heirs v. State Bank of India & Ors ., in WP (C) No. 4647/2019 (Gauhati High Court) (iii) Union of India & Ors. vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan , (1991) 1 SCC 588 (Apex Court) (iv) Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar , (1993) 4 SCC 727 (Apex Court) 6. Per contra, Mr. P. J. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati University, while vehemently opposing the reliefs sought in the writ petition, submits that the Inquiry Officer may record his recommendations, in addition to the fate of the charges, and the disciplinary authority is not bound by such recommendations. He further submits that unlike criminal proceedings, departmental proceedings do not require a high degree of probity, and "some evidence" in contrast to "no evidence" is enough to hold the delinquent guilty of the charges. He further submits that in the instant matter, the opportunity to cross-examine the 3 (three) witnesses was asked for after three days of the conclusion of the examination of the witnesses concerned. He further submits that the court would not enter into the adequacy/inadequacy of the evidence in the departmental proceedings unless it is perverse or of no evidence. He further submits that the delinquent is entitled to put forward his response to the inquiry report after getting intimation about the provisional/tentative acceptance or, for that matter, non- acceptance or partial acceptance of the inquiry report, and the delinquent should not make any response if the inquiry report with proved charges is not accepted by the disciplinary authority concerned. In support of the aforesaid submission, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. /b>., (1999) 7 SCC 739 . 7. He further submits that the departmental proceeding is a continuous quasi-judicial process up to the stage of penalty imposed, if there is any; and there is an alternative remedy available, including an appeal/review provision, even after the stage of penalty imposed. /b>., (1999) 7 SCC 739 . 7. He further submits that the departmental proceeding is a continuous quasi-judicial process up to the stage of penalty imposed, if there is any; and there is an alternative remedy available, including an appeal/review provision, even after the stage of penalty imposed. He accordingly submits that prior to such appellate/review stage, moving the constitutional court at any stage in the midst of the departmental proceedings would be a premature one, making way for opening a floodgate of litigations unnecessarily stalling the entire disciplinary proceedings. He further submits that the instant writ petition prior to the imposition of the penalty and/or acceptance of the recommendation of the Inquiry Officer is premature. He further submits that the delinquent has asked for an extension of time for making his response to the inquiry report and at the same time has moved a writ petition before this court using two forums at the same time, which is not accepted in the eyes of law and is regarded as misconduct on his part. He further submits that under Black's Law Dictionary (6 th Edition), the word “Accept” is defined, inter alia, as “to receive with intent to retain” and in the instant matter, the post “accepted” Executive Council's Agenda No. 8 dated 19.05.2025, in which meeting the disciplinary authority accepted the inquiry report in a provisional/tentative manner only and thereafter sent it for the response of the delinquent. He further relies upon the aforesaid case laws: - (i) State of Gujarat v. R.G. Teredesai & Anr ., 1969 (2) SCC 157 (Apex Court) (ii) Union of India & Ors. vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan , (1991) 1 SCC 588 (Apex Court) (iii) M.D. ECIL & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors ., (1993) 4 SCC 727 (Apex Court) (iv) State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar, (1991) 1 SCC 57 (Apex Court) (v) State of T.N. & Anr. v. S. Subramaniam , (1996) 7 SCC 509 (Apex Court) (vi) Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Ors ., (1999) 2 SCC 10 (Apex Court) (vii) Tara Chand Khatri v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. , (1997) 1 SCC 472 (Apex Court) (viii) Indian Overseas Bank, Annasalai & Anr. v. S. Subramaniam , (1996) 7 SCC 509 (Apex Court) (vi) Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Ors ., (1999) 2 SCC 10 (Apex Court) (vii) Tara Chand Khatri v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. , (1997) 1 SCC 472 (Apex Court) (viii) Indian Overseas Bank, Annasalai & Anr. v. P. Ganesan & Ors ., (2008) 1 SCC 650 (Apex Court) (ix) Airport Authority of India v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee , (2025) 4 SCC 111 (Apex Court) (x) Smt. Olympia Roy & Anr. v. S.B.I. & Ors ., WP (C) No. 4647/2019 (Gauhati High Court) 8. I have given my prudent considerations to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties and have perused the material available on record. I have also duly considered the case laws cited at the bar. 9. The issue falling for determination is whether the inquiry is vitiated for violation of rules of natural justice and other provisions of law and whether the acceptance of the inquiry report by the disciplinary authority before putting the delinquent on notice as regards the imposition of the proposed penalty vitiates the second show-cause notice and the consequent proceedings. 10. It appears that the respondent University, pursuant to the decision of holding an inquiry against the writ petitioner (Academic Registrar under suspension) under Rule 7 & 9 of The Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, read with Rule 4 of the GAUHATI UNIVERSITY CONDUCT RULES , 1975, submitted Memorandum of Charges to the writ petitioner on 23.10.2024 along with a statement of allegation in support of the article of charges, including a list of witnesses by whom the article of charges is proposed to be sustained. Upon perusal of the said list of witnesses, it appears that the following witnesses have been proposed to be produced as prosecution witnesses: (i) Sri Jiaur Pasa, (ii) Sri Angad Brahma, (iii) The Officer in Charge, ACB Police Station cum S.P., Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Assam, Guwahati, (iv) Prof. Birinchi Kumar Das, (v) The Registrar, Bhattadev University, and (vi) The Academic Registrar, Gauhati University. Subsequently, on 01.01.2025, after the Inquiry Officer was appointed, a summons was issued to the writ petitioner on 01.01.2025 requesting the writ petitioner to appear before the Inquiry Officer on 06.01.2025 in the venue and at the time mentioned therein. Birinchi Kumar Das, (v) The Registrar, Bhattadev University, and (vi) The Academic Registrar, Gauhati University. Subsequently, on 01.01.2025, after the Inquiry Officer was appointed, a summons was issued to the writ petitioner on 01.01.2025 requesting the writ petitioner to appear before the Inquiry Officer on 06.01.2025 in the venue and at the time mentioned therein. Pertinent that in the list of witnesses enclosed with the said summons, the following six names are proposed to be produced as witnesses on that date: “1. Jiyaur Pasa. 2. Anjad Brahma. 3. Rafiqul Hassan Choudhury. 4. Singha Ram Mili (APS) 5. Prof. Birinchi Kumar Das, Former VC, Bhattadev University. 6. The Academic Registrar, G.U.” 11. It appears that the names Rafiqul Hassan Choudhury and Singh Ram Mili (APS), appearing at serial nos. 3 and 4, respectively, were not earlier mentioned in the list of witnesses supplied to the writ petitioner; however, it is stated at the bar that Singha Ram Mili is the Officer in Charge of the then ACB Police Station cum S.P., Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Assam, Guwahati, who was shown as one of the proposed witnesses at serial no. 3 in the initial list of witnesses furnished to the writ petitioner. Admittedly, Rafiqul Hassan Choudhury is not in the said list of witnesses furnished earlier in point of time to the writ petitioner. Accordingly, on 06.01.2025, the writ petitioner submitted a reply in response to the aforesaid summons dated 01.01.2025 and sought time for postponing the inquiry proceeding to another date. The inquiry proceedings were accordingly adjourned to 16.01.2025. Thereafter, on 16.01.2025 the prosecution witnesses were duly examined, and their statements were recorded in the inquiry proceedings. 12. Upon a careful perusal of the inquiry report, it appears that though on 06.01.2025 the prosecution witnesses were present before the Inquiry Officer, however, in view of the adjournment of the inquiry proceedings on that date, the examination of the prosecution witnesses got deferred to the next date of hearing. Thereafter, on the next date of hearing, i.e., 16.01.2025, upon the prosecution witnesses being present, the same were examined. It further appears that the prosecution witness no. 1, Jiyaur Pasa, was examined and also was cross-examined by the writ petitioner. It further appears that though prosecution witnesses, i.e., PW-2 Anjad Brahma, PW-3 Singha Ram Mili, APS, PW-4 Prof. Thereafter, on the next date of hearing, i.e., 16.01.2025, upon the prosecution witnesses being present, the same were examined. It further appears that the prosecution witness no. 1, Jiyaur Pasa, was examined and also was cross-examined by the writ petitioner. It further appears that though prosecution witnesses, i.e., PW-2 Anjad Brahma, PW-3 Singha Ram Mili, APS, PW-4 Prof. Birinchi Kumar Das, Former VC Bhattadev University, PW-5 Rafiqul Hassan Choudhury, were also examined by the respondent authorities, the writ petitioner declined to cross-examine the said witnesses on that date. It further appears that subsequently, on 27.01.2025, the writ petitioner cross- examined PW-5 Rafiqul Hassan Choudhury. It further appears that on that day, another prosecution witness, i.e., Badrul Islam, was produced as prosecution witness no. 6, though his name was not included in any of the lists of witnesses circulated earlier to the writ petitioner. Hence, the writ petitioner, upon being asked to cross-examine the said witness, declined the same. Thereafter, the writ petitioner adduced his defence evidence, and after completion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer on that date itself, i.e., on 27.01.2025, held that the charges of misconduct brought out against the writ petitioner were proved beyond any reasonable doubt and further recommended the writ petitioner's dismissal from service in terms of Clause 46 (viii) of the Gauhati University Employees' Service Conditions, Conduct, and Appeal Rules, 1970. Pertinently, on 27.01.2025, the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner seeking defence assistance in the disciplinary proceedings in question was also listed before this court, and after hearing the parties, this court vide judgment & order dated 27.01.2025 rejected the prayer made therein; however, this court directed that in the event the writ petitioner was not given the opportunity to cross-examine the three witnesses, i.e., Anjad Brahman, Singha Ram Mili & Prof. Birinchi Kumar Das, the Inquiry Officer should consider giving an opportunity to the writ petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses in the departmental proceedings. It is evident that on 27.01.2025, both the inquiry proceedings and the hearing of the said writ proceedings were held simultaneously; however, the inquiry report does not indicate that the said direction passed by this court by judgment & order dated 27.01.2025 has been brought to the notice of the Inquiry Officer. It is evident that on 27.01.2025, both the inquiry proceedings and the hearing of the said writ proceedings were held simultaneously; however, the inquiry report does not indicate that the said direction passed by this court by judgment & order dated 27.01.2025 has been brought to the notice of the Inquiry Officer. It is further evident that on that date of hearing before the Inquiry Officer, though Rafiqul Hassan Choudhury was produced for cross-examination, the other three witnesses, i.e., Anjad Brahman, Singha Ram Mili & Prof. Birinchi Kumar Das, who earlier were not cross- examined by the writ petitioner, were not produced. It further appears that on that date, i.e., on 27.01.2025, a new prosecution witness, namely Badrul Islam, was produced as PW-6, whose name was not earlier included in the two lists of witnesses furnished to the writ petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petitioner on 30.01.2025 communicated the aforesaid judgment & order dated 27.01.2025 to the Inquiry Officer and further requested to give the opportunity to the writ petitioner to cross-examine the three prosecution witnesses, i.e., Anjad Brahman, Singha Ram Mili & Prof. Birinchi Kumar Das, and the newly added prosecution witness no. 6, i.e., Badrul Islam in terms of the aforesaid judgment & order. The letter dated 30.01.2025 reads as under: “To, The Inquiry Officer Gauhati University (Through the Presenting Officer) Sub: Application praying for opportunity to cross examine the prosecution witnesses Ref: 1. Summons dated 01.01.2025 bearing memo number GU/A.R./DP/I.O./07. 2. Judgment and Order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in WP© No. 351/2025 (Guruprasad Khataniar vs. The Gauhati University & Ors.) Sir, I, Prof. Guruprasad Khataniar, Academic Registrar (under suspension), Gauhati University, prefer this instant application for Your Good Self’s consideration in allowing me to cross examine all the prosecution witnesses as mentioned in the letter/summon under reference. In this regard, I beg to state that I could cross-examine only two prosecution witnesses (SI No.1 & 3 as mentioned in GU/AR/DP/10/07 dated 01.01.2025, while could not do the same for the other prosecution witnesses, due to the non-consideration of my defence assistant being a legal practitioner. The issue being sub-judice in WP(C) No. 351/2025 before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, was finally disposed off vide judgment and order dated 27.01.2025 under reference above. The issue being sub-judice in WP(C) No. 351/2025 before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, was finally disposed off vide judgment and order dated 27.01.2025 under reference above. However, the Hon'ble Court, in paragraph 20, had granted Your Good Self the liberty to consider my application for cross examination of the prosecution witnesses. As such I fervently pray before Your Good Self that I may be allowed the opportunity to conduct the same, as the entirety of my service career is at stake. Thanking you, Yours faithfully (Guruprasad Khataniar)” 13. What clearly transpires from the above is that the writ petitioner only cross-examined two prosecution witnesses nos. 1 and 3, i.e., Jiyaur Pasa and Rafiqul Hassan Choudhury, and could not cross-examine the other prosecution witnesses, as his prayer for consideration of a defence assistant was sub judice before this court on both the dates of hearing, i.e., 16.01.2025 and 27.01.2025. It is further evident that despite the direction of this court in the said writ petition to the respondent to grant a fresh opportunity to the writ petitioner to cross-examine the said witnesses, the same was not granted despite receipt of the said letter dated 30.01.2025. It is further apparent that likewise the disciplinary authorities accepted the finding of the Inquiry Officer and issued a show- cause notice by the impugned notice dated 13.05.2025 seeking as to why the proposed penalty of dismissal from service should not be imposed upon the writ petitioner, in a perfunctory manner. 14. As regards the contention of Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati University, that on 16.01.2025, while the respondent University examined the said three witnesses, the writ petitioner had declined to cross-examine them, this court cannot be unmindful of the fact that on that date WP(C) No. 351/2025 was pending before this court for consideration of the writ petitioner's prayer for grant of defence assistant in the inquiry proceedings and, subsequently, on 27.01.2025, this court specifically directed the respondents to grant the opportunity to the writ petitioner to cross-examine the said witnesses. That being so, the Inquiry Officer, upon receiving the letter dated 30.01.2025 and having been brought to notice as regards the judgment & order dated 27.01.2025 passed by this court in WP(C) No. 351/2025, ought to have complied with the aforesaid direction by granting the opportunity of cross-examination to the writ petitioner, as they have not been earlier cross-examined by the writ petitioner. Interestingly, there has been no response or consideration whatsoever to the said letter dated 30.01.2025 by the Inquiry Officer. In fact, in the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the respondent University, there is also no whisper as to why the judgment & order dated 27.01.2025 passed by this court in WP(C) No. 351/2025 was not complied with. 15. The argument of Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati University, that the writ petitioner was given the opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses; however, he only cross-examined PW-5 Rafiqul Hassan Choudhury, is not correct inasmuch as on 27.01.2025, as per the records of the Inquiry Officer, there is no evidence to show that the other three prosecution witnesses were also present on that date and an opportunity of cross-examination was granted to the writ petitioner. That apart, it is clearly evident that on 27.01.2025, this court had categorically directed the respondents to grant the opportunity to the writ petitioner to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, if not done earlier. Since admittedly, the aforesaid three witnesses were not earlier cross-examined by the writ petitioner for whatever reasons, it was incumbent upon the Inquiry Officer to comply with the directions passed by this court in WP(C) No. 351/2025. Hence, the non-granting of a fresh opportunity of cross-examination of the said witnesses in the inquiry proceedings to the writ petitioner has totally contravened the principles of natural justice and fair play. 16. That being so, the inquiry stands vitiated for not giving the opportunity to the writ petitioner to cross-examine the said witnesses, i.e., Anjad Brahman, Singha Ram Mili & Prof. Birinchi Kumar Das, and the newly added prosecution witness no. 6, i.e. Bodrul Islam. In view of the aforesaid finding, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the other issues raised in the instant writ petition. 17. Birinchi Kumar Das, and the newly added prosecution witness no. 6, i.e. Bodrul Islam. In view of the aforesaid finding, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the other issues raised in the instant writ petition. 17. Having held so, the matter is remanded back to the Inquiry Officer to the stage of granting fresh opportunity to the writ petitioner to cross-examine the four witnesses in accordance with law and proceed therefrom afresh. Accordingly, the findings of the Inquiry Officer vide Inquiry Report dated 13.02.2025 and the impugned resolution dated 21.03.2025 of the Executive Council of the respondent University, as well as all subsequent and consequential actions thereto, are hereby set aside and quashed. 18. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed.