The Supreme Court on Thursday heard a batch of appeals arising from the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) recruitment scam, examining whether probationary civil servants accused of securing appointments through fraudulent means can be discharged from service without a departmental inquiry under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The matter was heard by a Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Manmohan.
The appeals have been filed by officers who were appointed through the 2013 and 2014 Combined Competitive Examinations conducted by the APSC and were subsequently discharged from service after investigations into the alleged “cash-for-jobs” scam. The State alleges that the then APSC Chairman Rakesh Paul, along with others, orchestrated a large-scale recruitment fraud by accepting bribes, manipulating answer scripts and securing appointments for favoured candidates.
Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the appellants, contended that the discharge was founded on allegations of misconduct without any departmental inquiry, making the action punitive and violative of Article 311(2). She argued that the Gauhati High Court, having set aside the original discharge orders, ought not to have moulded the relief by directing the State to issue fresh discharge orders. Relying on decisions including Shamsher Singh, Anoop Jaiswal and Dipti Prakash Banerjee, she submitted that courts must look beyond the form of a discharge order to determine whether misconduct forms its true foundation.
Also Read Supreme Court Cancels Sonam Raghuvanshi’s Bail in Meghalaya Honeymoon Murder Case
Appearing for the State of Assam, Senior Advocate Nalin Kohli submitted that the case involved a ‘colossal fraud’ in public recruitment. He referred to the investigation, which allegedly revealed a systematic racket involving payment of bribes, rewriting of answer scripts and manipulation of marks to secure appointments in the Assam Civil Service and allied services.
During the hearing, the Bench explored the distinction between ‘motive’ and ‘foundation’ in service law, observing that a probationer may, in appropriate cases, be discharged through a non-stigmatic discharge simpliciter without a formal inquiry. The Court referred to settled jurisprudence that where misconduct merely motivates the employer’s decision, a simpliciter discharge may be permissible, whereas an inquiry becomes necessary if misconduct forms the foundation of the termination.
The Bench also questioned the Gauhati High Court’s directions distinguishing between probationers who had completed their probation period and those who had not, observing that completion of probation does not automatically result in confirmation unless the applicable service rules expressly provide for deemed confirmation.
Justice Amanullah further remarked that while the Court was conscious of the safeguards under Article 311, it also had to consider the larger public interest in a case involving allegations that public employment had been procured through widespread fraud. At the same time, the Bench clarified that these observations were part of its effort to understand the competing constitutional considerations and invited the parties to assist the Court further.
The Court directed the parties to file concise written notes on the legal issues and posted the matter for further hearing.