APSC Scam: Terminated Officers to Be Reinstated Based on Probation Completion, Says HC

In a landmark verdict concerning one of Assam's most controversial recruitment scams, the Gauhati High Court partly allowed 40 intra-court appeals filed by 52 terminated state service officers. These officers were earlier dismissed from service for their alleged involvement in the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) Combined Competitive Examination (CCE) 2013 and 2014 scam.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Malasri Nandi issued a detailed 134-page judgment, ruling that the termination or discharge orders were liable to be set aside, but subject to conditions related to the probationary status of the officers. The Court also made room for fresh departmental or disciplinary proceedings and clarified that its observations would not interfere with ongoing criminal trials.

Court’s Orders: Key Reliefs and Conditions

The High Court issued the following directives, carefully balancing procedural justice with public interest:

1. Termination Orders Set Aside:
   The discharge orders affecting the appellants — as challenged in W.P.(C) No. 4198/2019 and 48 connected writ petitions — have been set aside. However, relief is granted subject to the following conditions:

   i. Reinstatement for Completed Probationers:
   Appellants who have completed their initial probation period of two years — factoring in the maximum extendable probationary duration under relevant service rules — shall be reinstated within 50 days from the date of the judgment.

   ii. Review for Incomplete Probationers:
   For those appellants whose probation period remains incomplete, the competent authorities of the respective departments must pass appropriate orders within 50 days, considering:

   • The findings of this judgment.

   • Relevant service rules.

   • Other legal and administrative factors.

2. Notifications Declared Void:
   The Court held that the State Government’s notifications dated 30.12.2017 and 20.01.2018 — which reverted confirmed officers to probationers — were ex facie illegal, void ab initio, and unenforceable.

3. Scope for Departmental Proceedings:
   The Court clarified that the State Government may initiate disciplinary/departmental proceedings against any appellant. However:

   • Such proceedings must be completed within 90 days from the date of initiation.

4. No Back Wages Granted:
   Appellants will not receive salary arrears for the period from their discharge to the date of prospective reinstatement.

   • However, notional benefits (for calculating pension and pay scale fixation) will apply for that gap.

5. Postings and Witness Protection:
   Authorities may:

   • Keep reinstated officers without postings during the inquiry process, or

   • Assign them to neutral locations to ensure they do not influence witnesses in ongoing criminal trials.

6. Simpliciter Discharge for Certain Probationers:
   Appellants still on probation and found unfit for confirmation will not be reinstated. Instead, their discharge orders must be reworded as simpliciter discharges — to ensure no stigma is attached.

7. No Prejudice to Criminal Trials:
   The Court emphasized that neither the Single Judge's order nor the present judgment shall prejudice the outcome of criminal cases against any appellant or the State.

8. Prospective Operation of Judgment:
   The judgment shall take effect prospectively from June 20, 2025. The State has 30 days to initiate necessary actions.

9. Implementation Timeline:
   The order’s execution is kept in abeyance for 30 days, allowing the State Government time to comply with the directions.

10. Administrative Instructions:
    Appellants are directed to serve a certified copy of the judgment on the concerned departments.

11. Sealed Evidence Returned:
    A sealed record produced before the Court on 29.09.2023 was not opened or reviewed, and has been returned to the Government Advocate.

12. Acknowledgement of Legal Assistance:
    The Bench recorded its appreciation for the able assistance of senior counsel and advocates across all the connected appeals.

Context: The APSC Recruitment Scam

The case originated from Dibrugarh Police Station Case No. 936/2016, in which multiple candidates and APSC officials were charged with manipulation of answer sheets, forging invigilator signatures, and bribery. The scam involved:

• Fabrication and replacement of original answer scripts.

• Use of correction fluids to alter marks.

• Bribes allegedly paid to the then APSC Chairman Rakesh Kumar Paul and intermediaries.

Following a large-scale investigation, the Assam Government discharged 60 officers, 52 of whom challenged their termination in the High Court. The earlier dismissal of their writ petitions by a Single Judge in 2020 was set aside by this new judgment.

What the Verdict Means

This verdict delivers conditional relief to many officers — particularly those who have completed their probation. It opens the door for reinstatement, while empowering the State to:

• Initiate disciplinary action,

• Withhold postings temporarily, and

• Continue with criminal prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC.

By declaring the earlier notifications void, the Court reaffirmed that service status cannot be arbitrarily altered, and that probationers are entitled to due process before termination.

Also Read: Gauhati HC Directs Reinstatement of Officers Dismissed in APSC Scam