Gauhati High Court
Gs 170929Y vs The Union Of India And 7 Ors on 10 February, 2021
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010227812016
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/7105/2016
GS 170929Y, SFWALA RANJIT SINGH
S/O. LT. CHAMONLAL SINGH, 412 RMPL/100 RCC/15TF PROJECT SEWAK,
C/O. 99 APO.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA and 7 ORS
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF
DEFENCE TRANSPORT, NEW DELHI.
2:SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
NEW DELHI.
3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF BORDER ROADS
SENA SADAK BHAWAN
RING ROAD DELHI CANTT
NEW DELHI-10.
4:ADDITIONAL DGBR
BRO LANKESHWAR
P.O. LANKESHWAR
GUWAHATI
KAMRUPM.
5:COMMANDANT 15 BRTF
PROJECT SEWAK
C/O. 99 APO.
Page No.# 2/5
6:CHIEF ENGINEER PROJECT SEWAK
C/O. 99 APO.
7:COMMANDANT 16 BRTF
C/O. 56 APO
PIN. 930016.
8:THE SENIOR RECORD OFFICER GREF RECORD
DIGHI CAMP
PUNE-15 MAHARASHTRA
9:THE DIRECTOR
FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORTARY ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI-781019
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. P SAHARIA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S S ROY
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
JUDGMENT
Date : 10-02-2021
Heard Shri JC Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri SS Roy, learned
Central Government Counsel (CGC) for the Union of India. Also heard Shri D Doley, learned
State Counsel, Assam for the respondent No. 9.
2. Considering that the pleadings are complete and that this matter is pending since the
year 2016, the same is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 02.09.2016 by which his order of
posting to Bhutan has been cancelled. To appreciate the rival contentions, the facts of the
Page No.# 3/5
case may be stated in brief as follows.
4. The petitioner is an employee of the General Reserve Engineer Force (hereinafter for
short GREF) under the Border Roads Organization, which is governed by the Ministry of BRTF.
The employee of GREF are entitled to Bhutan Compensatory Allowance (in short BCA) posting
on fulfillment of certain criteria, namely, 5 years of Good ACRs and 26 months compulsory
service in High Altitude. It is the case of the petitioner that having fulfilled the aforesaid
criteria, an order dated 09.06.2016 was issued, by which the petitioner, who was the SFWALA
was transferred to Bhutan. However, by the impugned order dated 02.09.2016, the aforesaid
order dated 09.06.2016 was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner was earlier awarded
the penalty of "severe reprimand" under Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950, which was
intimated vide communications dated 22.06.2016 and 18.07.2016. It is the case of the
petitioner that at no point of time, he was made aware of imposition of the aforesaid penalty
and the very fact of issuing the transfer order dated 09.06.2016 substantiates his claim.
5. Shri Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an order of transfer under
BCA is issued only when the employee fulfils the necessary criteria, including 5 years of Good
ACRs. When such transfer order is issued, it is assumed that the employee, in question, has
fulfilled the necessary criteria, including the last 5 years ACRs which should have been Good,
the learned counsel submits. Shri Borah argues that at no point of time, the order of
imposition of penalty was communicated and therefore, in absence of such communication,
the cancellation order dated 02.09.2016 could not have been issued.
6. During the course of the proceedings, the records of the case were produced, which
contain the order of penalty which was duly acknowledged by the petitioner himself. The
petitioner having disputed such acknowledgement, this Court in IA(C) No.916/2019 had
passed an order dated 22.05.2019 allowing the impleadment of the Directorate of Forensic
Science Laboratory, Assam as respondent no. 9 and the disputed signature was, accordingly,
sent for examination by the official respondents.
Page No.# 4/5
7. Shri Roy, learned CGC has placed before this Court the expert opinion on the disputed
signature dated 19.02.2020 which states that the signature is indeed of the petitioner.
Learned CGC submits that since no independent challenge has been made to the aforesaid
expert opinion, the grounds of challenge in the present writ petition fall through. Shri Roy,
learned CGC further submits that the prayer in the writ petition is confined to a challenge
made to the order dated 02.09.2016 and there is no manner of challenge whatsoever, to the
order of penalty of "severe reprimand".
8. Shri Doley, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 9 submits
that the expert opinion has been rendered by following the due process of law by comparing
the disputed signature with the signatures of the petitioner appearing in a number of other
documents.
9. Shri Borah, learned counsel in his rejoinder submits that the impugned cancellation
dated 02.09.2016 was passed on a previous order of imposition of penalty. He accordingly,
contends that there may not be an absolute embargo for reconsideration of his case after a
certain period if the petitioner meets the requirement for grant of the benefit of BCA.
10. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties
and have also carefully examined the records of the case.
11. The principal ground of challenge, as pleaded in the writ petition, appears to be that,
at no point of time, was any order of imposition of penalty intimated to the petitioner. Such
contention has not only been disputed in the affidavit-in-opposition by the contesting
respondents, the records also reveal that the petitioner had acknowledged the penalty in
question. However, when such acknowledgement was also disputed by the petitioner, further
step was taken by this Court by giving an opportunity to the respondents to substantiate their
contentions regarding authenticity of the signature of the petitioner which had been duly
done in the form of an expert opinion dated 19.02.2020 from the Directorate of Forensic
Science, Assam, which was impleaded as party respondent no. 9 in the present proceeding.
Page No.# 5/5
12. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that no grounds for interference
with the order dated 02.09.2016 has been made out and, accordingly, the present writ
petition stands dismissed. It is, however, observed that if the Rules permit for reconsideration
of the case of the petitioner after a particular length of time, he may be considered for BCA
posting in accordance with law.
13. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
14. The record of the case is handed back to Shri SS Roy, learned Central Government
Counsel.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
