Meghalaya High Court
Shri. Rohit Kumar vs Union Of India on 19 June, 2025
Author: H. S. Thangkhiew
Bench: H. S. Thangkhiew
2025:MLHC:524
Serial No. 20
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 342 of 2024 Date of Decision: 19.06.2025
Shri. Rohit Kumar
S/o Shri. Girdhari Lal
R/o Vill- Madaim,
P.O - Madaim, Tehsil-Mahavan,
P.S- Raya, PIN-281204,
Dist-Mathura (UP)
Enrolled as Rifleman (Armour)
No. L/5023404k in Unit No. 31, Assam Rifles :::Petitioner
-Vs-
1.Union of India
Represented by the Secretary, Home
Department, Govt. of India,
New Delhi, India
2.The Director General
Assam Rifles, Head Quarter, Unit Pay
& Accounts Office (NE-III),
Shillong, 793011, Meghalaya
3.Inspector General
Headquarters, Assam Rifles (North)
PIN - 932554
C/o 99 APO
S/o-1 (A)
4.The Commandant
31 Assam Rifles
Changlang, Arunachal Pradesh,
C/o 99 APO
1
2025:MLHC:524
5.Brigadier Commander
25 Sector, Assam Rifles, Lekha Pani,
Tinisukia, Assam :::Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. A. Sahad, Adv. with
Ms. P. Choudhary, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI with
Ms. M. Myrchiang, Adv.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. The writ petitioner who was serving as a Rifleman is before this
Court, with a prayer to set aside and quash the Impugned Discharge Order
dated 06.09.2023, Discharge Certificate dated 23.11.2023, for setting aside
and quashing order dated 01.08.2024, and to allow the petitioner to rejoin
service, by regularizing the suspension period and for grant of all service
benefits.
2
2025:MLHC:524
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was enrolled as a Rifleman in
the Assam Rifles and in the course of his service, in the years 2014, 2015,
2021 and 2023, had been awarded five Red Ink Entries for over staying
leave and for every instance had been awarded rigorous imprisonment
which was duly served by him. On 26.08.2015, after the petitioner had
been awarded the third Red Ink Entry, for being absent for 63(sixty-three)
days, he was given a warning letter stating that if he incurred a fourth Red
Entry, a process of discharge from service would be initiated against him.
The petitioner however, absented himself again for 63(sixty-three) days in
the year 2021, and was awarded a fourth Red Ink Entry with accompanying
rigorous imprisonment, but was allowed to continue considering the length
of his service. In the year 2023, the petitioner once again absented himself
without leave, and was awarded a fifth Red Ink Entry with accompanying
rigorous imprisonment, which resulted in an inquiry proceeding being
initiated against him. In the inquiry proceedings, the Inquiry Officer came
to the conclusion that the writ petitioner was a habitual and repetitive
offender, but the respondents before discharging him from service, served a
show cause allowing him 15(fifteen) days to reply. On receipt of the show
cause reply dated 21.08.2023, on examination of the same, the petitioner
was issued with a discharge order dated 23.11.2023.
3
2025:MLHC:524
3. Mr. A. Sahad, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the petitioner was not afforded reasonable opportunity to put up his own
case, nor has any specific reason been given in the show cause. The
punishment imposed, he submits is too harsh, and not commensurate with
the alleged charges. He further submits that inspite of preferring an appeal
against the discharge order dated 23.11.2023, which was delayed, but was
accompanied by an application for condonation of delay of 24(twenty-four)
days, the same was not considered and the appeal was rejected, on the
ground that it was not within the stipulated time given in Rule 28(1) of the
Assam Rifles Rule, 2010. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel
has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court dated 14.07.2022,
in the case of Amarendra Kumar Pandey vs. Union of India & Ors.
passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 11473-11474 of 2018, wherein he submits, an
order of discharge on a receipt of four Red Ink Entries by the petitioner
therein, had been set aside. He therefore submits, the petitioner be given
the same consideration and in the least, orders may be issued that his
appeal be heard on merits.
4. Dr. N. Mozika, learned DSGI for the respondents has submitted that
the petitioner is bound by the Assam Rifles Act 2006, and his continuance
in service is subject to the conditions prescribed therein. The petitioner he
submits, though duty bound to maintain a high degree of discipline, had
4
2025:MLHC:524
been awarded five minor punishments under Section 62 of the Assam
Rifles Act, which are known as Red Ink Entries. The petitioner he further
submits, before being discharged from service by the impugned orders, had
been given ample opportunity to explain himself, and infact, after award of
the third Red Ink Entry, was given a warning that if a fourth Red Ink Entry
was awarded, a process of discharge would be initiated. Inspite of the
warnings, the petitioner he submits, was awarded two more Red Ink Entries
for being absent without leave. The inquiry pursuant thereto, being
conclusive on undisputed facts, after hearing the writ petitioner, his
discharge was recommended. It is further submitted that, the petitioner did
not prefer an appeal within the stipulated 90(ninety) days period, as
allowed under Rule 28(1) of the Assam Rifles Act, and there being no
provision for condonation, the appeal was therefore dismissed. Learned
DSGI has also placed a decision of this Court passed in the case of Jasom
Wangsa vs. Union of India reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Megh 72, in
support of his submissions.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, at the outset it is
seen that, the petitioner before being discharged, had indeed been awarded
five Red Ink Entries for a period ranging from 2014 to 2023, for which he
faced rigorous imprisonment for every instance. From the records, it is also
reflected that the petitioner was afforded adequate warning and an
5
2025:MLHC:524
opportunity to correct himself, after the award of the third Red Ink Entry.
By the warning letter dated 26.08.2015, after award of third Red Ink Entry,
the petitioner was warned to be more careful in his conduct, and was also
informed that if he incurred the fourth Red Ink Entry, action would be
taken under Section 11(2) of the Assam Rifles Act, and Rules 17 and 25
read with Rule 29 of the Assam Rifles Rules. However, it appears on his
failure to correct his conduct, and on the receipt of five Red Ink Entries, a
preliminary inquiry was instituted on 11.03.2023, and on the basis of the
opinion of the preliminary inquiry, showing that the petitioner was a
perpetual offender, it was recommended that show cause notice be issued
to the petitioner. On the show cause being filed, the respondents on
consideration of the same thereof, and on the finding that the petitioner was
an incorrigible offender, then discharged him from service.
6. In the entire sequence of events as discussed above, it is seen that the
petitioner had been discharged after following due process, as prescribed.
A perusal of Regulation 108 of the Assam Rifles Regulation, 2016, which
deals with Discharge on ground of Red Ink Entries, shows that the
respondents had duly followed the same before the final orders were
passed. The petitioner it can be seen, belonging to a disciplined force,
failed to correct himself, and inspite of the warning given, gave no heed
and continued in his errant ways, which resulted in his discharge. Even,
6
2025:MLHC:524
when preferring an appeal, the petitioner failed to file the same within the
90(ninety) days period, allowed by the statute, which resulted in the
dismissal of the appeal also.
7. In the considered view of this Court therefore, in view of the facts
and circumstances of the case, no interference is called for and the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed. The judgment cited by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is of no assistance to the case of the petitioner,
inasmuch as, in the instant case the discharge was after following due
process after affording adequate opportunity to the petitioner.
8. In the result therefore, there being no merit in the instant case, the
same stands dismissed and is accordingly disposed of.
Judge
Meghalaya
19.06.2025
“D.Thabah-PS”
Signature Not Verified 7
Digitally signed by DARIHUN
THABAH
Date: 2025.06.19 05:19:56 IST