Authority: Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)

Order Date: 28.08.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: petitioner Mrs. Ponung Moyong, daughter of Opang Moyong, a Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) in the Social Welfare, Women & Child Development Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh; respondents include Food Corporation of India (FCI) represented by its Chairman‑cum‑Managing Director, the Executive Director (NE) of FCI, the General Manager (Regional) of FCI, the State of Arunachal Pradesh, the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, the Director, Social Welfare, Women & Child Development Department, and the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission.
  • Background: Moyong was appointed CDPO in 1991. She was deputed to FCI as Assistant General Manager (General)/Area Manager for two years, released from her parent department on 02.09.2011, joined FCI on 30.09.2011, posted at Regional Office, Itanagar on 20.10.2011, and later held additional charge as Area Manager, Banderdewa from 01.11.2011, becoming exclusively posted there on 05.05.2012.
  • Suspension: On 24.05.2016, the Managing Director of FCI suspended Moyong under Regulation 66(1)(a) of the FCI (Staff) Regulation, 1971, alleging she caused loss to the corporation. She was placed at the Zonal Office, Guwahati, as her headquarters.
  • Repatriation: Moyong requested repatriation on health grounds (letter dated 20.05.2016) and was repatriated to her parent department effective 21.09.2016 by Order dated 20.09.2016. The suspension order was revoked on 19.08.2016.
  • Inquiry Initiation: Despite repatriation, FCI appointed an Inquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer on 24.11.2016. The inquiry commenced on 25.07.2017 at the Regional Office, Guwahati. Moyong appeared on 25.07.2017, denied the charges, and sought a Defence Assistant.
  • Procedural History of Inquiry:
  • Memorandum of Charge issued on 19.08.2016 (four articles of charge) requiring a written reply within ten days.
  • Moyong repeatedly failed to appear at scheduled hearings (26.08.2017, 27.10.2017, 28.12.2017, 02‑03.02.2018, etc.) citing medical leave, Aadhaar enrolment, and official duties.
  • The Inquiry Officer recorded statements of witnesses ex‑parte on 24.12.2017, 02.01.2018, 23‑24.01.2018, and 02‑03.02.2018.
  • Final hearing dates were fixed for 29‑30.12.2017 and later 10‑11.01.2018, with a warning that non‑appearance would lead to ex‑parte proceedings.
  • The Inquiry Officer submitted the Inquiry Report on 14.03.2018, finding all four charges proved.
  • Petition: Moyong filed WP(C) No. 3317 of 2019 seeking quash of the inquiry proceedings, the Inquiry Officer’s report dated 14.03.2018, and the letter dated 09.01.2019 (General Manager, Vigilance, FCI) requesting strict penalty.
  • Contentions:
  • Petitioner argued that the borrowing department (FCI) failed to inform the lending authority (Government of Arunachal Pradesh) as required by Regulation 65(1) of the 1971 Regulations, rendering the suspension and subsequent inquiry unlawful.
  • She contended that a common inquiry with other FCI employees was impermissible because she was a state servant, not an FCI employee, and that no competent authority had consented to a joint proceeding under Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
  • She claimed denial of documents, ex‑parte recording of witness statements, and lack of independent assessment violated natural justice.
  • FCI counsel countered that the borrowing department is authorized to suspend and conduct disciplinary proceedings on deputed officers, that Moyong voluntarily failed to appear despite notices, and that the inquiry was independent of other employees.
  • The State of Arunachal Pradesh argued that the lending authority had been informed of the suspension and that Regulation 65 permits the borrowing authority to act after consultation.
  • Legal Analysis:
  • The Court examined Regulation 66(1)(a) (suspension power) and Regulation 65(1) (mandatory intimation to lending authority). It found that while a copy of the suspension order was marked to the Chief Secretary, the detailed circumstances leading to suspension were not communicated, breaching Regulation 65(1).
  • The Court considered precedents (Shiv Parshad Pandey, B.L. Satyarthi, Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, etc.) on the limits of borrowing department’s disciplinary power after repatriation.
  • It noted that Regulation 65 does not expressly permit a full inquiry after the officer has been repatriated; only minor penalties may be imposed with prior consultation.
  • The ex‑parte proceedings were found vitiated because the Inquiry Officer did not record any reason for proceeding ex‑parte despite the petitioner’s repeated non‑appearance.
  • Findings: The inquiry initiated on 19.08.2016 and the subsequent Inquiry Report dated 14.03.2018 were not sustainable in law. The Court set aside both the inquiry proceedings and the report.
  • Directions: The petition is disposed of; each party bears its own costs. The respondent authorities are not barred from instituting fresh proceedings against the petitioner, provided such action complies with the applicable law.

Final Outcome: The Gauhati High Court declared the FCI inquiry against Ponung Moyong unlawful, quashed the inquiry proceedings and the 14‑Mar‑2018 report, but permitted the authorities to initiate fresh action in accordance with statutory provisions.

Topics: Legal Dispute, Administrative Law, Public Service Discipline