The Gauhati High Court has expunged adverse observations concerning two women officers from a Commission of Inquiry report on alleged irregularities in the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) Combined Competitive Examination, 2013. Justice Kardak Ete held that findings affecting their conduct and reputation could not be sustained without giving them an effective opportunity to respond to the material relied upon against them.
Background
Both petitioners had participated in the APSC Combined Competitive Examination, 2013, and were selected for government service. Sunayana Aidew subsequently served in various capacities, including as Superintendent of Taxes, while Kavita Das joined the Assam Police Service and later served as a Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Following allegations of irregularities in the examination and selection process, the Assam Government constituted a One-Man Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice (Retd.) B.K. Sarma on July 8, 2019, under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.
The Commission submitted its report on April 2, 2022. The petitioners challenged specific adverse observations recorded against them, particularly those appearing on pages 505 and 509 of the report.
They argued that although they had submitted written responses to notices issued by the Commission, they were not subsequently given an effective opportunity to address additional material, including statements made by Dr. Mrigen Saikia, which was relied upon in recording findings affecting their reputation.
The petitioners relied on Sections 8-B and 8-C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. These provisions provide procedural safeguards, including a reasonable opportunity to be heard and, where applicable, the right to cross-examine witnesses and present a defence.
The Court considered an earlier judgment delivered by a coordinate Bench on April 1, 2026, concerning the same Commission's reports on the 2013 and 2014 examinations.
Justice Ete noted that the earlier ruling had distinguished between the inquiry report as a whole and findings that prejudicially affected an individual's reputation.
The Court observed:
"The petitioners could not have been deprived of the rights flowing from the said provisions."
It further held that submitting written responses to earlier notices did not amount to sufficient compliance when additional material was subsequently brought on record and relied upon against the petitioners.
The judgment emphasised the need to follow the statutory safeguards before recording adverse findings concerning an individual's conduct and reputation.
The Court stated:
"The written responses submitted by the petitioners to the earlier notices cannot be treated as sufficient compliance."
It also clarified that the challenge did not require the Court to invalidate the entire inquiry report, which contained findings concerning alleged examination irregularities and recommendations on matters of public importance.
Holding that the impugned observations had been recorded in violation of Sections 8-B and 8-C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, and the principles of natural justice, the Gauhati High Court ordered their removal.
The Court directed:
"Such observations, findings and recommendations shall not be used or relied upon against the petitioners in any proceedings or before any forum."
Accordingly, the adverse observations, findings and recommendations concerning Sunayana Aidew and Kavita Das, insofar as they prejudicially affected their conduct and reputation, were expunged.
The writ petitions were disposed of, with no order as to costs.
