WP(C) 1978/2011. Gauhati High Court
|Case Number:||WP(C) 1978/2011|
|Judgement Date:||May 25, 2020|
|Court:||Gauhati High Court|
Major punishment relating to service of Defence Personal and Armed Forces
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI
(The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
Writ Petition ( C) No.1978/ 2011
SHI R I NDRESWAR BORAH,
SON OF SRI GULAP CHANDRA BORAH,
RESI DENT OF VI LLAGE : GOTANG PATHAK CHUBURI , P.O. BALI PUKHURI , P.S. TEZPUR,
DI STRI CT – SONI TPUR, ASSAM.
THE STATE OF ASSAM,
REP. BY THE COMMI SSI ONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF hOME, DI SPUR, GHY-6.
THE DI RECTOR GENERAL OF POLI CE, ASSAM, ULUBARI , GUWAHATI-7.
THE DEPUTY I NSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLI CE (AP), ASSAM, ULUBARI , GUWAHATI-7.
THE COMMANDANT, 7TH A.P.BN. CHORAI KHOLA, KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM, PI N-783376.
Advocates for the Petitioner: Mr. S. Bora &
Mr. D.P. Mandal.
Advocate for the Respondents: Ms. D.D. Barman, Govt. Advocate.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTI CE HRI SHI KESH ROY
Date of hearing & judgment: 25.05.2017.
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER ( ORAL)
Heard Mr. S. Bora, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate Ms. D.D. Barman represents the respondents.
The petitioner is a constable in the 7th Assam Police Battalion (in short ‘the 7th APBN’) and following his unauthorized absence for 39 days in between 15.2.2001—
19.6.2001, the D.P. No.16/ 2001, was drawn up against him. I n the charge mem dated 25.6.2001, besides the unauthorized absence for 39 days, the absence of the constable also on 20.6.2001, was specified in the show cause notice issued on
25.6.2001. The constable gave his reply on 13.7.2001 and since the disciplinary
…… PETI TI ONER.
authority was dissatisfied with the reply, an inquiry by the 2nd I / C. of the 7th APBN,
was ordered into the charges.
The delinquent responded to the notice served by the I nquiry Officer and also participated in the preliminary stages of the enquiry. The enquiry report of
28.11.2001 (Annexure-F) reflects that the delinquent pleaded guilty to the charge and stated that he does not wish to face further proceeding in the inquiry. Therefore on the basis of the guilty plea of the delinquent and taking note of the statements of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3 and other relevant materials, the inquiry officer declared that the charge of willful negligence, dereliction of duty and violation of lawful order , are proved.
When the charges were found to have been proved by the I nquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority considered the same and observing that the delinquent is an indisciplined person...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL