Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/3 vs Sri Hari Mohan Roy on 20 May, 2025
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010286222023
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Review.Pet./25/2024
UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW
DELHI- 110001.
2: THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE
CISF
HEAD QUARTER
BLOCK-13
CGO COMPLEX
LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI- 110003.
3: THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL
CISF
NEZ HEAD QUARTER
KOLKATA
WEST BENGAL- 700107.
4: THE SENIOR COMMANDANT
CISF UNIT
KOPT
KOLKATA- 700023
VERSUS
SRI HARI MOHAN ROY
S/O- LATE ACHINI ROY, LACHIT NAGAR, WARD NO. 3, ABHAYAPURI
TOWN, P.O. ABHAYAPURI, DIST.- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM.
For the petitioner : Mrs. A. Gayan, Advocate
Page No.# 2/3
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
20-05-2025
(Vijay Bishnoi, C.J.)
This review petition is filed by the review petitioners seeking review of the
judgment and order dated 07.12.2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in
WA 22/2021, which was filed by the non-applicant herein.
2. By the said judgment and order, the Division Bench of this Court reversed the
order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.07.2019 passed in WP(C) No.6282/2015
and remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority for passing a fresh order of
penalty without taking into consideration the past adverse remarks, which are
reflected in the Article of Charge-III. The Division Bench also issued direction to the
respondents (review petitioners) to reinstate the non-applicant/writ petitioner. It was
further directed to treat the period when he was not in service as under suspension
and also issued certain ancillary directions.
3. It appears that the review petitioners approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by
filing Special Leave Petition, being, Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary
No(s).21804/2023. However, on the date of hearing of the SLP, i.e. 04.07.2023, it was
submitted by the counsel for petitioners that the petitioners be permitted to withdraw
the SLP and move the High Court in its review jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court dismissed the said SLP as not pressed while granting liberty to the
petitioners to approach this Court in its review jurisdiction.
4. It appears from the order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the above-referred SLP that the review petitioners sought liberty for filing
Page No.# 3/3
review petition on the ground that the High Court had ignored the relevant office
memorandum as well as the Constitution Bench judgment which permits consideration
of past misconduct for imposing penalty against a delinquent.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners at length and also
gone through the grounds for review.
6. Learned counsel for the review petitioners has failed to place any Office
Memorandum which permits consideration of past misconduct for imposing penalty
against a delinquent in the disciplinary proceedings and has also failed to place any
judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court taking a contrary
view as has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Gujarat vs. Umedbhai M. Patel, reported in (2001) 3 SCC 314, on which the
Division Bench placed reliance while passing the judgment and order under review
dated 07.12.2022.
7. Hence, we do not find any merit in this review petition and the same is,
therefore, dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
