Page No.# 1/7 vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 4920 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/7 vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors on 22 May, 2025

Author: Nelson Sailo

Bench: Nelson Sailo

                                                                     Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010187752014




                                                            2025:GAU-AS:6494

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

                         Case No. : WP(C)/6304/2014
         NO. G/5017953N EX RIFLEMAN GD SUNIL KUMAR RABHA
         S/O- LT. RAMDHAN RABHA, BRAHMAPUTRA INDUSTRIOUS PARK, ABCI
         INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD., PLOT NO. 48, VILL.- AMIGAON GOURIPUR,
         P.O.- AMINGAON, DIST.- KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN- 781030.


         VERSUS

         THE UNION OF INDIA and 3 ORS
         REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME
         AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 110001.

         2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL ASSAM RIFLES
          SHILLONG
          MEGHALAYA
         PIN- 973011.

         3:THE COMMANDANT
          30 ASSAM RIFLES
          C/O- 99 APO
          PIN- 938030.

         4:VEDPAL YADAV
          COMMANDANT
          30 ASSAM RIFLES
          C/O- 99 APO
          PIN- 938030
                                                                             Page No.# 2/7




                                         BEFORE

                      Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO

Advocate for the petitioner   : Mr. S. Nath, Advocate.

Advocate for the respondents : Mr. B. Sarma, CGC.

Date of hearing               : 22.05.2025
Date of Judgment              : 22.05.2025


                                   Judgment & Order

Heard Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sarma, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.

2. By filing this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order by which he has been discharged from service on 01.10.2013 from the post of Rifleman (GD) Assam Rifles on the ground that he had never sought for being discharged from service and the same therefore should be set aside.

3. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as a Rifleman (GD)

under the 30th Battalion Assam Rifles on 15.05.2009. Thereafter, he has been serving

as such with due diligence. On 03.04.2013, while he was posted at 30 th Battalion Assam, Mantripukhri, Manipur, he was allotted night duty upto 2:00 am. The petitioner while returning from his duty was tired and due to the darkness, he mistakenly knocked the door of his nearby quarter of one Shri S. C. Das, Rifleman (GD). The wife of Shri S. C. Das opened the door and without giving any chance to the petitioner to explain himself started abusing him and shouted on top of her voice. The petitioner being nervous instead of returning to his quarter went back to the place of his duty. On 03.04.2013, the respondent no. 4, who was the Commandant of the Unit Page No.# 3/7

summoned the petitioner to his chamber and without making any enquiry about the incident, started beating and abusing him. One Major P. M. Tangode alongwith 3 other Juniors Commissioned Officers (JCOs) and also two other personals joined the Commandant. All of them beat up the petitioner mercilessly and for which the petitioner sustained serious injuries and fell unconscious. He was taken to the Assam Rifles Unit Hospital and was hospitalized for 12 days. While the petitioner was in the hospital the Quarter Master of the unit under the dictation of the Commandant, met the petitioner and told him that his discharge papers were ready and asked him to sign the same. When the petitioner refused, the Quarter Master threatened him at gun point and thereafter took his signatures in some blank papers and also in the already filled up form. The petitioner was not allowed to look into the papers to see the contents.

4. The petitioner was thereafter set free in the month of May, 2013 and he tried to meet the Inspector General (South) to disclose the entire incident but he was not permitted by the security deployed in the premise of the IG (South).The petitioner was kept under close security by the Commandant of the Unit and subsequently on 13.09.2013, the Commandant called the petitioner in his chamber and told him to meet one Mr. Pawan at Guwahati and gave his phone number. He also informed the petitioner that he has been discharged from service and directed to leave the Assam Rifles complex. Thereafter, the petitioner was discharged from service on 01.10.2013. Aggrieved with the discharged from service not as per his choice but by force the petitioner is before this Court.

5. Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was threatened and beaten up by the Commandant and the other officers and for which reason the petitioner had to be hospitalized for 12 days. The petitioner never submitted or agreed to being discharged from service and that he was forcefully asked to give his signature on blank papers. Since his discharge from service has been Page No.# 4/7

manipulated by putting him under threat, the discharge of the petitioner from service on 01.10.2013 and the impugned letter dated 11.03.2014 by which his appeal has been rejected should be set aside and he be reinstated back into service. In support of his submission the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Bikram Rana Vs Union of India reported in (2019) 2 GLT 386.

6. Mr. B. Sarma, learned CGC on the other hand submits that the petitioner is not consistent about the facts leading to his discharge from service. He submits that while the petitioner contends that it was due to the mistake on his part to enter into his neighbor's quarter that led the authorities to beat him up, he on the other hand, in his appeal stated that due to the prevailing situation in his hometown, he was compelled to bring his family without prior permission of the higher authorities and which ultimately resulted in his discharge from service. The learned CGC submits that in fact otherwise, it was solely on the request made by the petitioner despite being counselled that he will not be getting any pensionary benefit if he opts to be discharged from service that he still insisted to be discharged which resulted in his discharge from service. He submits that the application for discharge is duly signed by the petitioner himself and under the circumstances the interference of this Court is not called for.

7. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the rival parties and I have also perused the materials available on records including the records produced by the learned CGC.

8. It may be noted that according to the petitioner, he was abused and beaten up by the Commandant of the Unit along with the other officers on account of having entered in the quarters of his neighbour after midnight on 03.04.2013. He was called in the Office of the Commandant on the next day where he was abused and beaten up. According to the petitioner, he had to be hospitalized for 12 days and while in Page No.# 5/7

hospital, he was forced at gun point to give his signature in an already filled up form as well as in some blank papers. The petitioner was all the time kept under close security and even though he tried, he was unable to meet the Inspector General (South) to make his complaint. It was ultimately on 30.09.2013 that the Commandant of the unit called him and told him to meet one Pawan at Guwahati while giving his phone number and also informed him that he was discharged from service and he should leave the Assam Rifle campus. Such is the contention of the petitioner in this writ petition.

9. Annexed to the writ petition amongst others is the appeal submitted by the petitioner to the Directorate General of Assam Rifles, Shillong (DGAR) on 18.11.2013 as Annexure-2. In the said appeal, the petitioner has stated that he was on leave during September and October, 2012 and due to the prevailing situation in Garo Hills,

he was compelled to bring his family to his unit i.e. 30 th Battalion Assam Rifles without prior permission from the higher authority. That due to this reason, he was given heavy punishment by the Commandant and one Major S. M. Bhutia. Because of the punishment, he was admitted to the Assam Rifles Nodal Hospital, Mantripukhari and was discharged on 16.04.2013. After being discharged, he was compelled by the said authorities to sign the discharge application which ultimately led to his discharge from service. The appellate authority did not find merit and rejected the appeal. It is therefore noticed that the stand of the petitioner in his appeal before the DGAR and the explanation tendered by him at Paragraph No. 3 of the writ petition are not only inconsistent but contains a different story altogether. According to the petitioner, the incident of being beaten up and abused happened on 03.04.2013 whereas the discharge certificate from the hospital reflects that he was admitted in the hospital on 05.04.2013 and discharged on 16.04.2013. Further, the diagnosis which has been shown is generalized body ache.

10. After the petitioner was discharged on 16.04.2013, according to his own Page No.# 6/7

statement, he was set free in the month of May, 2013 wherein despite all attempts, he could not meet the Inspector General (South). It was finally on 30.09.2013, he was informed that he has been discharged from service on 01.10.2013. Although according to the petitioner, he was kept under close security, but it is highly improbable that he was reminded from approaching his superior authority by writing a complaint or a representation between the month of May, 2013 till his discharge on 01.10.2013.

11. The respondents in the counter affidavit, more particularly, at paragraph no. 5 as categorically stated that the petitioner availed leave from 21.05.2013 to 07.06.2013 and from 03.08.2013 to 30.09.2013. It therefore appears that the petitioner had ample opportunity to submit a complaint to the authorities concerned about the incident which happened to him and in fact to withdraw his application for voluntary retirement or from discharge from service which according to him was singed under duress on 16.05.2013. The petitioner however did not make any efforts for recalling the application which was set to be made by him at the behest of the respondent authorities. The petitioner in his affidavit-in-reply has also not denied the fact of having taken leave during the aforesaid period. The records produced by the learned CGC also shows that the petitioner gave his application for discharge from service at his own request on 16.05.2013, which was counter signed by the Commandant of the Unit with recommendation.

12. The Board proceedings which was held on 17.05.2013 as produced by the learned CGC also indicates that the Board had verified the circumstances as mentioned in the application by the individual and found the same to be genuine. It was also verified by the Board that he was not compelled/threatened for submission of discharge papers and that the Board had personally called the individual and asked about the genuineness of his submission of application. The individual had shown his inability to further service due to domestic affairs and personal problems and had submitted an undertaking that no claim for pensionery benefits would be made.

Page No.# 7/7

13. Having noticed what had transpired from the above narrated facts and circumstances as projected by the petitioner himself, this Court has no reason not to accept the records which has been produced by the learned CGC.

14. Thus upon due consideration of the case in its entirety, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. No. cost.

15. Having come to the above conclusion reference to the authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is found to be not necessary.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant