Maren Basumatary vs The State Of Assam
2021 Latest Caselaw 2013 Gua

                                                                  Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010115612021




                       THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                          Case No. : WP(C)/3727/2021

         MAREN BASUMATARY
         LANCE NAIK, 579 A.B., KOKRAJHAR POLICE RESERVE, S/O LT. TILIRAM
         BASUMATARY, VILL. GWJWMPURI, P.O. AND P.S.KOKRAJHAR, DIST.
         KOKRAJHAR (BTAD), ASSAM, PIN 783370



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF
         ASSAM, HOME DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 6

         2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

          ASSAM POLICE HEAD QUARTERS
          ULUBARI
          GUWAHATI-7
          ASSAM.

         3:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (MPC)
          GUWAHATI
         ASSAM.

         4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (BTAD)
          KOKRAJHAR
         ASSAM.

         5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

          (BTAD)
          KOKRAJHAR
          ASSAM
                                                                         Page No.# 2/4

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR P K DAS

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM




                                   BEFORE
                   HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

                                          ORDER

Date : 31.08.2021

Heard Mr. P.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 5.

2. The petitioner was working as Assam Battalion Constable and posted in Kokrajhar. In the year 1998, while on duty as a PSO and House Guard of Bodoland Autonomous Council Chief Kanakeswar Narzary in Tengaigaon, about 100-150 Bodo miscreants had looted away the arms and ammunitions from their post. Consequently, the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 27.10.1998. Annexure-B to the writ petition discloses that a disciplinary proceeding, being D.P. No.20/1998 was drawn up against the petitioner and he was held guilty of cowardice and dereliction of duty under section 7 of the Police Act. Holding gross negligence to be unpardonable, punishment was imposed on the petitioner with stoppage of 2 (two) annual increments. However, it was made clear that the same would be applicable after the court verdict. Resultantly, the petitioner was released from suspension and the period of suspension was treated to be on duty. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the trial of Sessions Case No.134/2005, the petitioner was not a named accused in the charge-sheet and therefore, no Page No.# 3/4

punishment was imposed on the petitioner in the said trial. It is also submitted that other accused in the said trial were acquitted in the judgment and order dated 08.12.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar in Sessions Case No.134/2005. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted a representation on 20.11.2019 to the Superintendent of Police, Kokrajhar (respondent no.5) for releasing the two annual increments for the year 1999-2000 on the ground that there was no indictment of the petitioner in the Sessions Case No.134/2005. As the said representation was not responded to, the petitioner has submitted another representation before the respondent no.2 on 05.10.2020. By treating the said representation as an appeal, the respondent no.3 by order dated 16.06.2021, rejected the appeal on the ground that the petitioner did not mention any cause of delay in submitting the appeal and accordingly, without considering the appeal, the appeal was dismissed by order dated 16.06.2021. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. On considering the matter and its entirety, it appears from the order dated 18.02.2000 that the competent authority, i.e. the respondent no.5 had already held the petitioner to be guilty of cowardice and dereliction of duty and he was inflicted with the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments. Although it was ordered that the punishment would be made applicable after Court verdict, but there is nothing on record to show that the said punishment was made subject to finding of guilty against the petitioner in the criminal Court. Therefore, the stoppage of two increments after the Court verdict was rendered in Sessions Case No.134/2005 is merely a postponement of punishment imposed by order dated 18.02.2000. Accordingly, it is evident that the petitioner had submitted representation before the respondent no.5 on Page No.# 4/4

20.11.2019 and thereafter, an appeal was filed on 05.10.2020, more than 20 years after the order of punishment dated 18.02.2000.

4. As submitted by the learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate, it is seen that the letter dated 05.10.2020, which was treated as an appeal does not contain any ground for the delayed filing of the appeal. Resultantly, the Court finds no infirmity in the order dated 16.06.2021 by the respondent no.3, refusing to entertain the representation after 20 years. The petitioner had accepted the order of 18.02.2000 without any demur till 20.11.2019 and therefore, the present writ petition is without any merit and the same is dismissed without issuance of notice on the respondents.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant