Triloson Boro vs The State Of Assam And 8 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 2418 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Triloson Boro vs The State Of Assam And 8 Ors on 28 January, 2025

Author: Soumitra Saikia

Bench: Soumitra Saikia

                                                                  Page No.# 1/10

GAHC010115232022




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

                           Case No. : WP(C)/4489/2022

         TRILOSON BORO
         S/O. RABIN BORO, R/O. BLOCK D4, GRP COMPLEX, MALIGAON,
         BORIPARA, GUWAHATI-781012, ASSAM.



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS.
         TO BE REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPTT.
         OF HOME, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.

         2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

          ASSAM
          ULUBARI
          GUWAHATI-781007
          ASSAM.

         3:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
          NORTHERN RANGE

          TEZPUR
          DIST. SONITPUR
          ASSAM.

         4:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (A)
         ASSAM
          ULUBARI
          GUWAHATI-781007
         ASSAM.

         5:THE ASSTT. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (R)
         ASSAM
                                                                            Page No.# 2/10

             ULUBARI
             GUWAHATI-781007
             ASSAM.

            6:THE SUPDT. OF POLICE
             LAKHIMPUR CUM DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
             NORTH LAKHIMPUR
            ASSAM.

            7:THE SUPDT. OF RAILWAY POLICE
             PANDU
             GUWAHATI
            ASSAM.

            8:THE DEPUTY SUPDT. OF RAILWAY POLICE (HQ) CUM ENQUIRY OFFICER

             PANDU
             GUWAHATI
             ASSAM.

            9:THE RESERVE OFFICER
             GRP RESERVE CUM PRESENTING OFFICER

             PANDU
             GUWAHATI
             ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR I RAFIQUE, MS A AFREEN,MS. S DEVI

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM,




                                    BEFORE
                     HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

                                       JUDGMENT

Date : 28-01-2025

Heard Mr. I. Rafique, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for the respondents.

2] This writ petition is directed against the impugned order of dismissal dated

31.12.2021, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur-Cum-Disciplinary Authority, Page No.# 3/10

North Lakhimpur, Assam in Departmental Proceeding No. 02/2020 vide Memo No. NL (R)/DP/

02/2021/ 12258-67, dated 31.12.2021 as well as the impugned order dated 26.04.2022,

passed by the Inspector General of Police, Northern Range, Tezpur, District- Sonitpur, Assam

vide Memo No. NR/D.P./2022/1083-86, dismissing the appeal, preferred by the petitioner

against the order of dismissal.

3] The petitioner at the relevant point of time was employed as General Railway

Police Force Constable. Pursuant to an FIR lodged by the informant, who was travelling by

train alleged that the petitioner and two other G.R.P.F. personnel that they had snatched

away a quantity of gold from the said informant, the FIR was registered as GRPS Case No.

24/2020 under Sections 386/34 IPC. Pursuant to the investigation carried on, the petitioner

and the other two railway personnel were detained in custody. The petitioner was, however,

subsequently enlarged on bail on orders passed by this Court.

4] In view of his detention in custody as well as the in the case of the allegation

made, the Superintendent of Police, Pandu, Assam, issued a show cause notice to the

petitioner raising allegation that there are materials to suggest that the petitioner had

attempted to unauthorisedly take away 1 KG of gold from the informant on 01.02.2020. This

act was seen as a tantamount to gross misconduct and dereliction of duty and gross

irregularity for punishment as per procedure of law. The said show cause notice was

accompanied by a list of documents and the statement of allegations. The petitioner had

submitted his written statement againsts the said show cause notice. Not being satisfied with

the explanations given by the petitioner for his defense, the Disciplinary Authority instituted

Departmental Proceedings being D.P. No. 02/2020 and appointed both the Enquiry Officer as

well as the Presenting Officer. Pursuant to the initiation of the Enquiry Proceeding, the Page No.# 4/10

petitioner, who was under suspension, was also reinstated in service. Pursuant to the enquiry

conducted by the Enquiry officer appointed, the charges made against the petitioner and two

other railway personnel namely ASI Sri Shrawan Kr. Jha and UBC 121 Bulbul Haque

Choudhury have been proved by the Enquiry Officer.

5] Pursuant to the submissions of the enquiry report, the petitioner was again put to

show cause by the disciplinary authority requiring him to submit his reply as to why any of

the major penalty prescribed under the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964

(hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1964") should not be imposed. The petitioner

accordingly submitted his reply praying before the authority that the punishment proposed to

be imposed ought not to be imposed in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.

6] Upon due consideration of his reply, the disciplinary authority namely the

Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur by order dated 31.12.2021 imposed a major punishment

of "dismissal from service" of the petitioner.

7] Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority.

The appellate authority also by order dated 26.04.2022 dismissed the appeal preferred by the

petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this court

8] Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ petition is filed seeking a

direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate order

on the ground of parity in so far as one of the GRPF personnel is concerned i.e. UBC 121

Bulbul Haque Choudhury, against whom enquiry was also conducted by way of same Page No.# 5/10

Disciplinary Proceedings, the enquiry Officer imposed punishment of stoppage of one

increment with cumulative effect. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the

findings of the Enquiry Officer and the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer are

common against both the GRPF personnel, the disciplinary authority should not have taken

two different views arising out of the same episode. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that both the enquiry proceedings were conducted together in respect of the

petitioner, UBC 121 Bulbul Haque Choudhury and another namely, ASI Sri Shrawan Kr. Jha.

While in the proceeding in respect of ASI Sri Shrawan Kr. Jha is stated to be still pending

before the disciplinary authority, the proceedings in respect of UBC 121 Bulbul Haque

Choudhury and the petitioner came to be concluded with the disciplinary authority imposing

two different punishments on the petitioner as well as the other GRPF personnel UBC 121

Bulbul Haque Choudhury. While in respect of the petitioner's dismissal from service, on the

same finding by the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority in respect of UBC 121 Bulbul

Haque Choudhury imposed only the punishment of stoppage of one increment with

cumulative effect. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that this is a fit case to exercise

jurisdiction of this Court and to pass appropriate order interfering with the order passed by

the disciplinary authority to impose lesser punishment on the petitioner maintaining the parity

as in the case of UBC 121 Bulbul Haque Choudhury.

9] In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the

judgment of the Apex Court in the cases of (1) Director General of Police and others Vs. G.

Dasayan, reported in (1998) 2 SCC 407 as well as (2) Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj Vs. Bank

of India and others, reported in (2019) 15 SCC 786 and (3) Rajendra Yadav Vs. State of

Madhya Pradesh and others, reported in (2013) 3 SCC 73. Pressing these judgments into Page No.# 6/10

service, the learned counsel for the petitioner strongly urges that where the allegation in

respect of both the personnel are similar and the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer

appointed was the same and the conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer in respect of the

two delinquent GRPF personnel, are the same, the disciplinary authority in respect of the writ

petitioner ought not to have given such harsh punishment as compared to the minimum

punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority on UBC 121 Bulbul Haque Choudhury. The

petitioner further submits that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority ought to

have been considered by the appellate authority which however was not done. The Appellate

authority upheld the order passed by the Appellate authority. However, this has not been

done, the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as by the appellate

authority should be interfered with and set aside and the petitioner be granted lesser

punishment by invoking parity.

10] Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam submits that

the only challenge made in this proceeding is with regard to parity of punishment. There is no

challenge to the enquiry proceedings conducted by the Enquiry Officer. It is further submitted

that since the petitioner and the other delinquent employees are posted at different places,

their controlling officers as the disciplinary authorities are also not one and the same officer.

In so far as the writ petitioner is concerned, the disciplinary authority was Superintendent of

Police, Lakhimpur wherein in respect of UBC 121 Bulbul Haque Choudhury, the disciplinary

authority was the Superintendent of Police, Darrang. The learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate

submits that two different disciplinary authorities contemplated different views and it is open

to such disciplinary authorities to pass such orders as they deem it fit and proper on the

findings and the conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer. Learned Government Counsel Page No.# 7/10

therefore, submits that since there were two disciplinary authorities passing separate orders

although on the same enquiry and findings, such orders passed by the disciplinary authorities

are in compliance with the Rules prescribed, therefore there is no infirmity in the orders

passed by the said disciplinary authority against the writ petitioner. She further submits that

before the appellate authority no such ground of parity was urged by the writ petitioner.

11] In the rejoinder, the petitioner submits that the order passed in the case of UBC

121 Bulbul Haque Choudhury by the disciplinary authority had come to his knowledge after

the order was passed by the appellate authority. Therefore, at the time of the appeal, the

order passed in favour of UBC 121 Bulbul Haque Choudhury was not in his knowledge.

12] Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials

available on record and the judgments placed before this Court, while there is no quarrel in

principle as laid down by the Apex Court that although the power of the writ court for judicial

review on the quantum of punishment is limited, in the given facts and circumstances of the

case, it may be open for a writ court to pass appropriate order to modify the punishment

imposed by the disciplinary authority.

13] Having said that perusal of the Rules of 1964 reveals that the Rule 26 of the said

rules reserves power to review the same by the Governor of a State on its own motion or

otherwise call for the records of the case to review of any order which is made appealable

under this Rules and thereafter confirm, modify or set aside the order; or impose any penalty

or set aside, reduce, confirm or enhance penalty imposed by the order; or even remit the

case to the authority which made the order or to any other authority directing such further

action or enquiry as he considers proper in the circumstances of the case; or pass such other Page No.# 8/10

orders as he deem fit.

14] Further Rule 27 of the said Rules of 1964 also provides that the authority to which

an appeal against an order imposing any penalties prescribed in Rule 7 lies may, on its own

motion or otherwise, call for the records of the case in a disciplinary proceeding, review any

order passed in such case and, after consultation of the commission where such consultation

is necessary, pass such orders as it deem fit, as if the Government servant had preferred an

appeal against an order.

15] Having noticed the facts urged in this writ petition as well as the provisions of the

Rules and the judgments passed into service, it is seen that the only ground urged before this

Court for interfering with the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate

authority is on the ground of parity. Under the relevant service rules, the disciplinary authority

of the petitioner as well as UBC 121 Bulbul Haque Choudhury are not one and the same

officer. Rather, they were under the respective Superintendents of Police of the Districts

where the delinquent GRPF personnel were posted. In so far as the petitioner is concerned,

the disciplinary authority was the Superintendent of police, Lakhimpur whereas in the case of

UBC 121 Bulbul Haque Choudhury, the disciplinary authority was the Superintendent of Police

Darrang.

16] At the relevant point of time, there were separate officers posted as the

Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, in the absence of any specific Rules, the conclusions arrived

at by the respective disciplinary authority in case of the delinquent employees on the basis of

the conclusion held by a common enquiry cannot be interdicted unless it is shown the same

are contrary to any provision of law. No interference to such provisions have been made Page No.# 9/10

before the court. Further, in the appeal preferred before the appellate authority prescribed

under the statute, the prayer for imposition of lesser penalty on the parity of punishment was

not urged before the appellate authority as has been fairly submitted by the learned counsel

for the petitioner.

17] It is submitted that at the time when the appeal was preferred before the

appellate authority, the order passed by the disciplinary authority in respect of UBC 121

Bulbul Haque Choudhury was not in the knowledge of the petitioner. The said order according

to the learned counsel for the petitioner came to knowledge of the petitioner well after the

rejection of his appeal by the appellate authority. Under such circumstances, since no

challenge is made to the proceeding undertaken by the authorities or the procedure adopted

by the authorities while initiating the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner, nor has it

been shown that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner are contrary to

the provisions of law or in violation of the accepted Rules of natural justice, this Court does

not find any ground to interfere with the proceedings or punishment imposed in respect of

the writ petitioner. However, in view of the provisions prescribed under Rule 27 of the Rules

of 1964, it is seen that the authority to which the appeal against the order of imposition of

any of the penalties prescribed in Rules 27 lies, is vested with the power, on its own motion

or otherwise to call for the records of the case in any disciplinary proceeding and review such

an order passed in any case. Accordingly this court is of the view that the petitioner can be

permitted to approach the appellate authority and file application for review as prescribed

under Rule 27 of the Rules of 1964. If any such application is filed by the petitioner within a

period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, the authority

vested with the power under Rule 27 of the Rules of 1964 will examine the case of the Page No.# 10/10

petitioner and will pass appropriate speaking order(s) after giving due opportunity of hearing

to the delinquent including the petitioner. The said appellate authority while passing order

under Rule 27 will also take into consideration the judgments rendered by the Apex Court

referred herein above.

18] Such speaking order will be passed within a period of 60 days from the date of

filing of the application for review filed under the provisions of Rule 27 of the Rules of 1964.

19] In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition stands disposed of.

20]        No order as to costs.

21]         Send back the records if any.




                                                                  JUDGE



Comparing Assistant