WP(C)/5708/2020
2025 Latest Caselaw 1983 Gua

Gauhati High Court

WP(C)/5708/2020 on 5 August, 2025

GAHC010187852020




                                                2025:GAU-AS:10171

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


                        W.P.(C) NO.5708 OF 2020

                        Sri Sarode Ankush Ramnath,
                        S/o- Sh. Ramnath Sarode,
                        Vill- Jodwadi, P.O.- Kachanar,
                        Dist- Aurangabad, Maharashtra.
                        Discharged from service as compulsory
                        retirement from 7th Assam Rifles C/O 99
                        APO, Pin 932007.
                                                  .......Petitioner

                                   -Versus-

                   1.   Union of India, represented by the
                        Secretary the Govt. of India, Ministry of
                        Home Affairs New Delhi-110001.

                   2.   The Director General of Assam Rifles,
                        Shillong Meghalaya-11.
                   3.   The Commander 5 Sector Assam Rifles,
                        C/O 99APO, Pin-932405.
                   4.   The Commandant 7th Assam Rifles, C/o
                        99APO, Pin-932007.

                                              .......Respondents




                                                        Page 1 of 14
                         -BEFORE-

       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

For the Petitioner(s)   : Mr. B. Pathak, Advocate.

For the Respondent(s)   : Ms. B. Sarma, Central Government
                          Counsel.

Date of Hearing         : 05.08.2025.

Date of Judgment        : 05.08.2025.

                  JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. B. Pathak, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. B. Sarma, learned C.G.C., appearing for the respondents.

2. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the impugned discharge order dated 25.03.2020 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), whereby the petitioner was initially awarded the punishment 'to be dismissed from service'; however, later on upon being remitted, the punishment was modified to 'compulsorily retired from service'.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: -

The petitioner, Ex-Rifleman (General Duty) Sarode Ankush Ramnath was enrolled into Assam Rifles on 31st October, 2007, and after completion of basic military training, he was posted to 7 Assam Rifles with effect from 7th November, 2008 to 4th March, 2020.

It is the specific case of the petitioner that he was granted 90 days Earned Leave plus 10 days journey period with effect from 21st January 2013 to 30th April 2013. After termination of the said leave, he was supposed to report on 1st May 2013 but he failed to do so. Accordingly, the petitioner was declared Over Staying Leave (OSL) with effect from 1st May 2013 vide 7 Assam Rifles signal No. A 5514 dated 26th May 2013 and as per Section 83 (1) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, apprehension roll was issued vide letter No. I.32011/12/Rec/2013/245 dated 31st May 2013 to the Superintendent of Police, District Aurangabad (Maharashtra) with copy to petitioner's Next of Kin i.e. Smt Sarode Chandrakalabai (Mother) and concerned police station. Thereafter, the petitioner voluntarily reported at Assam Rifles Transit Camp, Dimapur, on 9th July 2016 after remaining OSL for 1166 days. Subsequently, a Court of Inquiry was convened by the 7th Assam Rifles vide order No. I.11012/35/A/C of I/2019 dated 16th April 2019, to investigate the circumstances under which the petitioner remained OSL for 1166 days without informing the competent authority. During the inquiry, the petitioner was provided with full opportunity to cross examine the witnesses or produce any evidence in his support. The Court of Inquiry found the petitioner blameworthy for the grave offence and recommended strict disciplinary action against the petitioner for remaining OSL for 1166 days and thus, a Tentative Charge Sheet dated 30th May 2019 was served to the petitioner under Section 26 (b) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006.

Thereafter, on 1st June 2019, Hearing of Charge was conducted as per Rule 47 of Assam Rifles Rules, 2010 in which competent authority ordered to record Summary of Evidence. During recording of Summary of Evidence, the petitioner revealed that during his leave he appeared for B.A first year examination and subsequently, decided to continue his graduation without reporting back to his unit. After completion of his graduation in the year 2016, when the petitioner could not find any suitable employment in civil, he decided to rejoin his unit. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner never informed anyone about his aspiration of completing graduation nor did he contact the competent authority for extension of his leave. However, he willfully remained OSL for 1166 days.

The recording of Summary of Evidence was concluded on June 2019 and thereafter, Summary Assam Rifles Court, for short, SARC was ordered for early disposal of the case under Section 26 (b) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006. The 7 Assam Rifles vide letter no. 1.11012/A-Discp/SAR/2020/7986 dated 28th February 2020, informed the petitioner about trial by SARC under Section 26 (b) of Assam Rifles Act, 2006 and the petitioner was also given the opportunity to depute a person to assist him during the trial. Thereafter, the petitioner vide his letter dated 28th February, 2020 nominated Number G/76003F Havildar (General Duty) Mahesh Singh as his friend to assist him during the trial.

The petitioner was provided with full opportunity to defend himself during the entire disciplinary proceedings and to produce any valid reason/ sufficient cause/ documentary

evidence to justify his case. The SARC was held at Battalion Headquarter of 7 Assam Rifles on January 2020 for remaining OSL for 1166 days without sufficient cause and the court awarded him the punishment "To suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of eighty nine days in force custody and forfeit pay and allowances for a period of three months". The SARC proceedings were forwarded to HQ 5 Sector Assam Rifles for approval vide 7 AR letter No. 1.11012/A- Discp/SAR/2020/7821 dated 27th January, 2020. However, as per Section 137 of the Assam Rifles Act 2006, the proceedings were set aside by Deputy Inspector General, Assam Rifles, (DIG AR), 5 Sector AR with directions to conduct the proceedings de-novo vide letter No 19011/132/Discp- 7AR/HR/A-2020/868 dated 22nd February 2020. Accordingly, de-novo SARC was held at Battalion Headquarter of 7 Assam Rifles on 4th March 2020 and the court awarded the punishment "To be dismissed from service" to the petitioner. The revised SARC proceedings were again forwarded to HQ 5 Sector AR under Section 137 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, vide 7 AR letter No 1.11012/A-Disc/2020/71 dated 4th March 2020. However, DIG AR vide letter No. 19011/132/Discp- 7AR/SAR/A-2020/1104 dated 21st April 2020 varied the punishment from 'To be dismissed from service' to 'compulsorily retired from service', so as to ease his transition in civil life without the stigma of dismissal from force on humanitarian consideration.

4. Situated thus, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking direction to quash and set aside the

impugned order dated 25.03.2020, awarded by SARC and to reinstate the petitioner in service with all service benefits.

5. Mr. B. Pathak, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, submits that the order of the disciplinary authority awarding the penalty of discharge of duty was not communicated to the petitioner; however, upon perusal of the impugned order dated 25.03.2020, the petitioner has come to know that though the petitioner was initially discharged from duty, however, later on the same was modified to compulsory retirement.

6. Per contra, Mrs. B. Sarma, learned CGC, appearing for the respondents, submits that there is no procedural violation or violation of natural justice while conducting the disciplinary proceeding in question. She further submits that the petitioner had committed a grave offence of remaining OSL for 1166 days and the action taken by the respondent authority is as per Assam Rifles Act 2006, Assam Rifles Rules 2010 and policy in vogue. She further submits that the respondent authorities have provided adequate opportunity to the petitioner at different stages of the disciplinary proceedings but the petitioner failed to provide any evidence in his support. She further submits that discipline being the bedrock of Assam Rifles and hence, the charges against the petitioner after having been established and proved, the same cannot be taken leniently.

7. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the

contending parties, and also perused the material available on record.

8. Apt to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, which are extracted hereunder for ready reference: -

"5. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 4 of the writ petition the same being matters of record, the deponent while denies and disputes the correctness of the statements which are not borne out of records states that the petitioner was enrolled as Rifleman/General Duty in the Assam Rifles on 31st October, 2007 and was posted at 7th Assam Rifles after completion of basic military and trade training. The petitioner was granted 90 days Earned Leave plus 10 days journey period with effect from 21st January 2013 to 30th April 2013. After termination of the said leave, he was supposed to report on 1st May 2013 but he failed to do so. The petitioner voluntarily reported at Assam Rifles Transit Camp, Dimapur on 9th July 2016 after remaining OSL for 1166 days, which is contrary to the rules and regulations of Assam Rifles, being a disciplinary force. Therefore, the claim of petitioner of being a good soldier is not correct. The deponent further states that the decision of joining Assam Rifles on 1st October 2007 is the wilful decision of the petitioner and nobody forced him to discontinue his studies in order to join the force.

6. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 6 of the writ petition the deponent submits that the petitioner never informed the competent authority of his unit about his aspiration of acquiring higher educational qualification. Moreover, the petitioner accepted during the recording of Summary of Evidence that he requested for 90 days leave plus 10 days journey period on pretext of building house at his native village.

7. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 7 of the writ petition the deponent submits that the petitioner is trying to gain undue sympathy of

the Hon'ble Court. The respondent authority respectfully submits that Assam Rifles has its own well established study centres under IGNOU which offers educational courses for serving soldiers aspiring to acquire higher educational qualification. Every year a number of soldiers get enrolled for numerous courses after taking permission from the competent authority and permission is granted to all soldiers interested in acquiring higher education qualification. However, in the present case the petitioner never informed about his willingness of acquiring higher education qualification to the respondent authority and without following the norms, he remained OSL 1166 days.

8. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 8 of the writ petition the deponent submits that the statement made in his paragraph is false, incorrect and misleading. The respondent authority respectfully submits that the petitioner neither spoke to his company commander nor did he informed anyone in his battalion about his aspiration for perusing of the BA degree. Moreover, petitioner did not approached anyone in the unit for extension of leave. During the recording of Summary of Evidence, petitioner's Company Havildar Major and Platoon Havildar also clearly mentioned that they did not received any phone call / correspondence from the petitioner during his OSL period. The petitioner has also accepted the same and declined to cross examine the witnesses when asked to do so.

9. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 9 of the writ petition the deponent submits that the petitioner was a salaried government servant. However, being not satisfied with his job, petitioner remained OSL for 1166 days in order to seek another job and once he could not achieve the same he decided to rejoin, which clearly brings out his lackadaisical attitude towards the noble profession of Armed Forces. The petitioner himself accepted the same during the recording of statement in Summary of Evidence. Moreover, aspiration of the individual to become a graduate could have been accomplished within the Force, if he could have followed the laid down norms.

10. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 10 of the writ petition the answering deponent submits that once the petitioner rejoined his unit on 9th July 2016 (Afternoon), a court of inquiry was ordered to investigate the circumstances under which the petitioner remained OSL for 1166 days without informing the competent authority at his unit. Hearing of Charge of the petitioner was conducted as per Rule 47 of Assam Rifles Rules 2010 and subsequently Summary of Evidence was recorded as per provision of Rule 49 of Assam Rifles Rules 2010. The Recording of Summary of Evidence was concluded on 6th June 2019 and thereafter SARC ordered for early disposal of the case under Section 26 (b) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2010. The claim of the petitioner that the period of absence of 1166 days in respect of the petitioner was regularised is wrong and baseless. The pay and allowances in respect of the petitioner recommended with effect from 9th July 2016 once he reported back to duty, in accordance with HQ DGAR policy No. A/Pers/Policy/Stoppage of pay allces/2014/2202 dated 26 May 2014.

11. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 11 of the writ petition the answering deponent submits that the Court of Inquiry proceedings were initiated against the petitioner to investigate into the circumstances under which he remained OSL for 1166 days without informing the competent authority. After considering the opinion of the court and the circumstance faced by the accused as well as the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner, the Court found the petitioner blameworthy for the grave offence and recommended strict disciplinary action against the petitioner for remaining OSL for 1166 days. Accordingly, Hearing of Charge of the petitioner was carried out as per Rule 47 of Assam Rifles Rule 2010 and subsequently Summary of Evidence was recorded as per provisions of Rule 49 of Assam Rifles Rule 2010.

12. That with regard to the statements made in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the writ petition the answering deponent submits that the disciplinary proceedings in respect of the petitioner were conducted in accordance with Assam Rifles Act 2006,

Assam Rifles Rules 2010 and as per HQ DGAR policy No. I. 11018/Law/SARC/2017-211 dated 20th February 2017. Further, in accordance with Rule 167 of Assam Rifles Rules 2010, the petitioner was provided with an opportunity to depute a friend for his assistance during the proceedings and accordingly Number G/76003F Havildar (General Duty) Mahesh Singh was deputed by the petitioner as his friend vide letter dated 28th February 2020 to assist him during Summary Assam Rifles Court proceedings.

13. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 14 of the writ petition the answering deponent submits that the averments of the petitioner are false, fabricated, baseless and concocted. It is stated that in accordance with Para 5 of Rule 60 of Assam Rifles Rules 2010 timely intimation i.e. four days in advance was given to the petitioner vide 7 Assam Rifles letter No. 1.11012/A-

Discp/SAR/2020/7986 dated 28th February, 2020, about his trial by SARC under Section 26 (b) on 4th March, 2020. The same has also been acknowledged by the petitioner through receipt signed on 28th February, 2020.

14. That with regard to the statements made in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the writ petition the deponent denies and disputes the correctness of the statements being false, misleading and concocted. The respondent authority would like to submit that the SARC proceedings were verbally communicate to the petitioner in Hindi. The entire proceedings were explained to the petitioner and petitioner also signed the requisite documents after having understood the complete proceedings. The contention of the petitioner that the documents signed by him were not handed over to him is false and baseless. A copy of the SARC proceedings were handed over to the petitioner vide 7 Assam Rifles letter No. I. 11012/A-

Discp/SAM/2020/67 dated 4th March 2020 and the same was duly received by the petitioner vide receipt dated 4th March 2020. Hence, the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merit.

15. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 17 of the writ petition the deponent

submits that, the SARC proceedings in respect of the petitioner was held at Battalion Headquarters 7 Assam Rifles on 21 January 2020 for remaining OSL without sufficient cause and the court awarded him the punishment 'To suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of eighty nine days in force custody and forfeit pay and allowances for a period of three months'. The Summary Assam Rifles Court proceedings were forwarded to Headquarter 5 Sector Assam Rifles for approval vide 7 Assam Rifles letter No. I.11012/A-Discp/SAR/2020/7821 dated 27th January 2020. The Summary Assam Rifles Court (SARC) proceedings were however set aside by Deputy Inspector General 5 Sector Assam Rifles with directions to conduct de-novo Summary Trial vide Headquarter 5 Sector Assam Rifles letter No. 19011/132/Discp-7 AR/HR/A-2020/868 dated 22nd February 2020. Accordingly, the de-novo SARC was held at Battalion Headquarters 7 Assam Rifles on 4th March 2020 and the individual was tried for remaining OSL for 1166 days without sufficient cause under Section 26(b) of the Assam Rifles Act 2006, and the court awarded him the punishment "To be dismissed from service. The revised SARC proceedings were again forwarded to Headquarter 5 Sector AR for approval vide 7 Assam Rifles letter No.

1. 11012/A-Discp/HR/2020/71 dated 04 March 2020. Deputy Inspector General, 5 Sector Assam Rifles vide letter No. 19011/132/Discp-7AR/DARR/A-

2020/929 dated 25 March 2020 varied the punishment from 'To be dismissed from service' to be 'Compulsorily retired from service'. The revised punishment was further approved by HQ DGAR vide registered letter No. 1.1018/Law/G/P/SARC- pdgs/2019/383 dated 11th May 2020. The petitioner was accordingly sent on compulsorily retirement from service with effect from 4th March 2020 in accordance with the order by Deputy Inspector 5 Sector Assam Rifles vide order No. 19011/132/Discp-7AR/SARC/A- 2020/1104 dated 21 April 2020.

16. That with regard to the statements made in paragraphs 18 to 20 of the writ petition the deponent submits that the allegation of the petitioner about action of the respondent authority being illegal and in

violation to provision of Assam Rifles Act and Rules is absolutely false and baseless. The actions of respondent authority are warranted as per Rules 47, 49, 60, 61 and 62 of the Assam Rifles Rules 2010. Justice has not been denied to the petitioner, the petitioner has knowingly committed a grave offence by remaining OSL for 1166 days without informing the competent authority and is liable to be punished according to the Law. The action of the respondent is fair and according to the law of the land. There is no infringement of the Article 14, 20 (2) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The SARC proceedings against the petitioner was conducted in accordance with the provisions of Assam Rifles Act and Rules. The allegation for wrongful dismissal from service is baseless and devoid of merit. Provisions of Assam Rifles Rule 47, 49, 60, 61 & 62 were complied while recording Summary of Evidence. Hence, the contention of the petitioner is false, incorrect, devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed.

17. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 21 of the writ petition the deponent submits that the statement is false, incorrect hence denied. The answering respondent humbly submits that, from the initial stage of disciplinary proceeding le, conduct of Court of Inquiry to final stage of Summary Assam Rifles Court proceedings, the petitioner was provided with full opportunity to cross examine the witnesses or to produce any evidence in his support. However, he falled to produce any evidence in his support. Hence, the contention of the petitioner is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

18. That with regard to the statements made in paragraphs 22 to 26 of the writ petition, the respondent authority offer no comments being submission of the petitioner before the Hon'ble Court. The answering respondent humbly submits that the petitioner committed a grave offence of remaining OSL for 1166 days and the action taken by the respondent authority is as per the rules, regulations and policy in vogue. The answering respondent provided adequate opportunity to the petitioner at different stages of disciplinary proceedings but he failed to produce any

evidence in his support. Discipline is the bedrock of Assam Rifles and hence it become pertinent to set an example while dealing with such offence cases in the Force, in order to uphold the discipline and ethos of Assam Rifles. Hence, the contention of the petitioner is baseless, devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

The deponent in this regard states that the Hon'ble High Court of Meghalaya, Shillong vide judgment and order dated 12th March 2020 passed in the WP (C) No 291/2015 (Rajesh Kumar -Vs- UOI and others) has observed the issue regarding OSL, as under:-

'It may be noticed that the petitioner failed to give any justification for his prolonged absence from duty for a period of 04 years, 07 months and 28 days. Reason of such a prolonged absence given by the petitioner is hardly convincing and does not inspire confidence. He was required to rejoin his duty immediately after completing of casual leave of fifteen days. Neither the petitioner applied for extension of leave nor did he inform about his whereabouts to the unit till he rejoined voluntarily on 16 May 2009. It also cannot be said that penalty of dismissal from service is disproportionate because the petitioner belongs to a disciplined force i.e. Assam Rifles and maintain highest discipline. The total period of absence is so high that fully justify the penalty of dismissal. The petitioner therefore cannot be allowed to state that the penalty of dismissal of disproportionate to the gravity of the charges against him.

In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition and is accordingly dismissed'.

19. That with regard to the statements made in paragraphs 22, 23 and 24 of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that the petitioner was OSL for 1166 days without any valid reason. The petitioner was subject to Assam Rifles Act, 2006 and the offence of OSL is punishable under sec 26 (b) of Assam Rifles Act, 2006. The allegation of the petitioner that he was forced to signed on the discharge paper is absolutely false since the petitioner was not discharged, he was dismissed from service for the grave offence of remaining OSL for 1166 days. Armed Forces are known for their discipline and upright conduct, hence it becomes pertinent to set an example while dealing

with such offences in the force, in order to uphold the discipline and ethos of Armed Forces. The respondent authorities are high ranking government official having due regard for the Laws of the Union of India and have acted according to the law. Therefore, the action of the respondent authority is legal and justifiable. Justice has not been denied to the petitioner. He has committed a grave offence of remaining OSL for 1081 days and has been punished according to the Law by the competent authority. Armed Forces stands on the bedrock of discipline and person subject to Armed Forces cannot be allowed to come and go from duty as they please. This kind of infraction if permitted will shake the structure of the organization and will badly affect security of the country. Since, the respondent authority has acted according to the Laws of the Union of India. Therefore, it is humbly requested that the instant writ petition may please be dismissed for being devoid of merit and substance.

9. Reading the aforesaid averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent authorities, it is apparent that the charges leveled against the petitioner having been fully established and proved, the aforesaid impugned penalty of compulsory retirement has been awarded. It further appears that the aforesaid penalty is proportionate to the gravamen of the charge proved. Hence, this court finds no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 25.03.2020, and accordingly, the writ petition is bereft of any merit whatsoever.

10. Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed and is disposed of. No order as to costs.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant