Ajamber Singh Munda vs Union Of India And 3 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 2122 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Ajamber Singh Munda vs Union Of India And 3 Ors on 21 January, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

                                                                 Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010118892020




                                                          undefined

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

                        Case No. : WP(C)/3531/2020

         AJAMBER SINGH MUNDA
         S/O SH. RANGA SINGH MUNDA, VILLAGE ICHADIH, PO ULIDIH, DIST
         RANCHI, JHARKHAND, 835225. DISMISSED FROM THE SERVICE BY THE
         COMMANDANT 40TH ASSAM RIFLES C/O 99 APO



         VERSUS


         UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
         MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NEW DELHI 110001

         2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ASSAM RIFLES
          SHILLONG
          MEGHALAYA 11

         3:THE COMMANDER
          7TH SECTOR ASSAM RIFLES
          C/O 99 APO

         4:THE COMMANDANT
          40TH ASSAM RIFLES C/O 99 APO 93204




                                 BEFORE

             Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
                                                                        Page No.# 2/6



Advocate for the petitioner        : Shri B. Pathak, Advocate
Advocate for the respondents        : Ms. B. Sarma, C.G.C.

Date of hearing               : 21.01.2025
Date of judgment              : 21.01.2025




                                    JUDGMENT & ORDER

Approach to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been made with the following prayer:

"In the premises aforesaid, it is therefore humbly prayed that your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition, call for records, and issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of certiorari should not be issued to quash and set aside and impugned order of discharge dated 08 March 2019, (Annexure -7) passed by the Respondent no. 4 as being arbitrary and illegal and further to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued / directing / commanding the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith with all service benefits; and / or cause as de novo inquiry with proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and after causes / causes being shown and after hearing the parties may be pleased to make the Rule absolute and / or pass such order (s) as to your Lordships deem fit and proper."

2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner who hails from Jharkhand had joined the Assam Rifles as a Rifleman (GD) on 01.04.2013 and was posted at

the 40th Assam Rifles. While in service, he was sanctioned leave for 15 days on Page No.# 3/6

20.06.2015. However, after reaching home for the purpose of his marriage, there were certain circumstances for which the petitioner could not go back and join his service and therefore, he overstayed his leave. Ultimately, on 19.06.2018, the petitioner had returned back and joined his service. After such re-joining, a preliminary enquiry was initiated on 31.01.2019 wherein statements were recorded and a summary Court Martial was recommended. Accordingly, on 08.03.2019 a summary Court Martial was held resulting in dismissal from service of the petitioner. The petitioner had preferred an appeal which, according to him was also not considered. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed with the grievances as mentioned above.

3. I have heard Shri B. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Ms. B Sarma, the learned CGC.

4. Shri Pathak, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there were compelling circumstances for which the leave had to be overstayed. He submits that though the period of overstay is more than 1,000 days, that by itself cannot be a ground for dismissal from service when there were justifiable grounds and basis for such overstay. It is contended that when the petitioner had availed his leave on 20.06.2015 to solemnize his marriage and had come to his hometown, there were threats from Naxalites regarding the said marriage in spite of which the marriage was solemnized. He has also contended that subsequent thereto the uncle of the petitioner was shot dead in which the target was actually the petitioner. Under those circumstances, the petitioner, in fear of his life did not come back to re-join his service and accordingly, the delay had occasioned. It is submitted that from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent authorities, the petitioner had come to learn that the appeal has been dismissed. He has also contended that from the proceedings, it appears Page No.# 4/6

that the petitioner was shown to have pleaded Guilty which according to him was done without understanding the consequence thereof.

5. By drawing the attention of this Court to the averments made in paragraph 15 of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 31.03.2015, his marriage was solemnized and there was a threat by the Naxalites and the aspect of death of the uncle of the petitioner who was shot by the Naxalites has also been pleaded. The learned counsel has accordingly submitted that the aforesaid aspects have not been taken into consideration in its correct perspective and in a mechanical way, the order of dismissal has been passed in the Court Martial.

6. Per contra, Ms. B Sarma, the learned CGC has submitted that the period of overstay, as such is grossly inordinate wherein more than 1,000 days are involved. It is submitted that there is no plausible explanation given for such delay in rejoining his service. She contends that the sanctioned leave was for 15 days for solemnization of the marriage and even if certain compelling circumstances existed, the same were required to be informed to the respondents which was not done. As regards the alleged threatening by the Naxalites, the learned CGC has contended that admittedly no case was registered before the police and no documents has been annexed regarding the death of the uncle of the petitioner in a shooting incident. She submits that the petitioner himself belonging to a para-military force cannot take up the plea that he was scared to report the matter to the police. She has also highlighted the aspect that in the Court Martial proceeding, all opportunities were given to the petitioner including assistance by a defense representative. By referring to the affidavit-in-opposition and the documents appended thereto, the learned CGC has submitted that one Dibangkar Das, ARMO was allotted to the petitioner as Page No.# 5/6

his defense representative so that no prejudice was caused to him in the proceeding. She had also submitted that in the proceeding, the petitioner had pleaded Guilty and the petitioner being an educated person cannot take up the plea that he did not understand the consequence thereof. She, accordingly contends that the present case is liable to be dismissed.

7. The rival contentions have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined.

8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was serving as a Rifleman (GD) in the Assam Rifles and he had joined the said service on 01.04.2013. After a period of about 2 (two) years, i.e., on 20.06.2015, he was sanctioned leave of 15 days on the plea of solemnizing his marriage at Jharkhand. Though as per the petitioner, the marriage was solemnized with one Pratima Devi, he has taken up an excuse that there was threatening by Naxalites for which he could not come back to re-join his service. The petitioner has also averred that his uncle was shot dead and such incident was actually targeted against him. Though the reasons cited appear to be of serious nature, this Court is however intrigued by the fact that there is not a single document in connection with such explanation. No police case was lodged even on a serious incident of shooting by Naxalites and the period of 1081 days is exceptionally inordinate and long that would require serious and proper explanation which is not found available either in the pleadings or any documents.

9. This Court has also noticed that the proceeding of Court Martial reveals that the petitioner had pleaded Guilty. There is no averment that such recording was made in a fraudulent manner. Further, as pleaded on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner was given a defense representative through an ARMO and on going through the proceedings of the Court Martial, this Court Page No.# 6/6

does not find any irregularity or impropriety which may require any interference by this Court. It also appears from the records made available that the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal has been rejected.

10. A Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is only to see as to whether the decision-making process has been done by taking into consideration the relevant factors and not based on any irrelevant factors or extraneous considerations. The aspect of adherence to the principles of natural justice is also to be looked into. In the instant case, the order of dismissal from service dated 08.03.2019 appears to have been passed by following the due process of law and the charge against the petitioner itself is a very serious one, more so, when he belongs to a disciplined paramilitary force.

11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the present case does not call for any interference and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant