Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/5708/2020 on 5 August, 2025
GAHC010187852020
2025:GAU-AS:10171
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
W.P.(C) NO.5708 OF 2020
Sri Sarode Ankush Ramnath,
S/o- Sh. Ramnath Sarode,
Vill- Jodwadi, P.O.- Kachanar,
Dist- Aurangabad, Maharashtra.
Discharged from service as compulsory
retirement from 7th Assam Rifles C/O 99
APO, Pin 932007.
.......Petitioner
-Versus-
1. Union of India, represented by the
Secretary the Govt. of India, Ministry of
Home Affairs New Delhi-110001.
2. The Director General of Assam Rifles,
Shillong Meghalaya-11.
3. The Commander 5 Sector Assam Rifles,
C/O 99APO, Pin-932405.
4. The Commandant 7th Assam Rifles, C/o
99APO, Pin-932007.
.......Respondents
Page 1 of 14
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. Pathak, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Ms. B. Sarma, Central Government
Counsel.
Date of Hearing : 05.08.2025.
Date of Judgment : 05.08.2025.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. B. Pathak, learned counsel, appearing
for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. B. Sarma, learned C.G.C.,
appearing for the respondents.
2. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the impugned
discharge order dated 25.03.2020 (Annexure-4 to the writ
petition), whereby the petitioner was initially awarded the
punishment ‘to be dismissed from service’; however, later
on upon being remitted, the punishment was modified to
‘compulsorily retired from service’.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: –
The petitioner, Ex-Rifleman (General Duty) Sarode
Ankush Ramnath was enrolled into Assam Rifles on 31st
October, 2007, and after completion of basic military training,
he was posted to 7 Assam Rifles with effect from 7th
November, 2008 to 4th March, 2020.
Page 2 of 14
It is the specific case of the petitioner that he was
granted 90 days Earned Leave plus 10 days journey period
with effect from 21st January 2013 to 30th April 2013. After
termination of the said leave, he was supposed to report on
1st May 2013 but he failed to do so. Accordingly, the
petitioner was declared Over Staying Leave (OSL) with effect
from 1st May 2013 vide 7 Assam Rifles signal No. A 5514
dated 26th May 2013 and as per Section 83 (1) of the Assam
Rifles Act, 2006, apprehension roll was issued vide letter No.
I.32011/12/Rec/2013/245 dated 31st May 2013 to the
Superintendent of Police, District Aurangabad (Maharashtra)
with copy to petitioner’s Next of Kin i.e. Smt Sarode
Chandrakalabai (Mother) and concerned police station.
Thereafter, the petitioner voluntarily reported at Assam Rifles
Transit Camp, Dimapur, on 9th July 2016 after remaining OSL
for 1166 days. Subsequently, a Court of Inquiry was
convened by the 7th Assam Rifles vide order No.
I.11012/35/A/C of I/2019 dated 16th April 2019, to
investigate the circumstances under which the petitioner
remained OSL for 1166 days without informing the competent
authority. During the inquiry, the petitioner was provided with
full opportunity to cross examine the witnesses or produce
any evidence in his support. The Court of Inquiry found the
petitioner blameworthy for the grave offence and
recommended strict disciplinary action against the petitioner
for remaining OSL for 1166 days and thus, a Tentative Charge
Sheet dated 30th May 2019 was served to the petitioner
under Section 26 (b) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006.
Page 3 of 14
Thereafter, on 1st June 2019, Hearing of Charge was
conducted as per Rule 47 of Assam Rifles Rules, 2010 in
which competent authority ordered to record Summary of
Evidence. During recording of Summary of Evidence, the
petitioner revealed that during his leave he appeared for B.A
first year examination and subsequently, decided to continue
his graduation without reporting back to his unit. After
completion of his graduation in the year 2016, when the
petitioner could not find any suitable employment in civil, he
decided to rejoin his unit. However, it is pertinent to mention
here that the petitioner never informed anyone about his
aspiration of completing graduation nor did he contact the
competent authority for extension of his leave. However, he
willfully remained OSL for 1166 days.
The recording of Summary of Evidence was concluded
on June 2019 and thereafter, Summary Assam Rifles Court,
for short, SARC was ordered for early disposal of the case
under Section 26 (b) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006. The 7
Assam Rifles vide letter no. 1.11012/A-Discp/SAR/2020/7986
dated 28th February 2020, informed the petitioner about trial
by SARC under Section 26 (b) of Assam Rifles Act, 2006 and
the petitioner was also given the opportunity to depute a
person to assist him during the trial. Thereafter, the petitioner
vide his letter dated 28th February, 2020 nominated Number
G/76003F Havildar (General Duty) Mahesh Singh as his friend
to assist him during the trial.
The petitioner was provided with full opportunity to
defend himself during the entire disciplinary proceedings and
to produce any valid reason/ sufficient cause/ documentaryPage 4 of 14
evidence to justify his case. The SARC was held at Battalion
Headquarter of 7 Assam Rifles on January 2020 for remaining
OSL for 1166 days without sufficient cause and the court
awarded him the punishment “To suffer rigorous
imprisonment for a period of eighty nine days in force custody
and forfeit pay and allowances for a period of three months”.
The SARC proceedings were forwarded to HQ 5 Sector Assam
Rifles for approval vide 7 AR letter No. 1.11012/A-
Discp/SAR/2020/7821 dated 27th January, 2020. However, as
per Section 137 of the Assam Rifles Act 2006, the proceedings
were set aside by Deputy Inspector General, Assam Rifles,
(DIG AR), 5 Sector AR with directions to conduct the
proceedings de-novo vide letter No 19011/132/Discp-
7AR/HR/A-2020/868 dated 22nd February 2020. Accordingly,
de-novo SARC was held at Battalion Headquarter of 7 Assam
Rifles on 4th March 2020 and the court awarded the
punishment “To be dismissed from service” to the petitioner.
The revised SARC proceedings were again forwarded to HQ 5
Sector AR under Section 137 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006,
vide 7 AR letter No 1.11012/A-Disc/2020/71 dated 4th March
2020. However, DIG AR vide letter No. 19011/132/Discp-
7AR/SAR/A-2020/1104 dated 21st April 2020 varied the
punishment from ‘To be dismissed from service’ to
‘compulsorily retired from service’, so as to ease his transition
in civil life without the stigma of dismissal from force on
humanitarian consideration.
4. Situated thus, the petitioner has filed the instant writ
petition seeking direction to quash and set aside the
Page 5 of 14
impugned order dated 25.03.2020, awarded by SARC and to
reinstate the petitioner in service with all service benefits.
5. Mr. B. Pathak, learned counsel, appearing for the
petitioner, submits that the order of the disciplinary authority
awarding the penalty of discharge of duty was not
communicated to the petitioner; however, upon perusal of the
impugned order dated 25.03.2020, the petitioner has come to
know that though the petitioner was initially discharged from
duty, however, later on the same was modified to compulsory
retirement.
6. Per contra, Mrs. B. Sarma, learned CGC, appearing
for the respondents, submits that there is no procedural
violation or violation of natural justice while conducting the
disciplinary proceeding in question. She further submits that
the petitioner had committed a grave offence of remaining
OSL for 1166 days and the action taken by the respondent
authority is as per Assam Rifles Act 2006, Assam Rifles Rules
2010 and policy in vogue. She further submits that the
respondent authorities have provided adequate opportunity to
the petitioner at different stages of the disciplinary
proceedings but the petitioner failed to provide any evidence
in his support. She further submits that discipline being the
bedrock of Assam Rifles and hence, the charges against the
petitioner after having been established and proved, the same
cannot be taken leniently.
7. I have given my prudent consideration to the
arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the
Page 6 of 14
contending parties, and also perused the material available on
record.
8. Apt to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the
affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1
to 4, which are extracted hereunder for ready reference: –
“5. That with regard to the statements made in
paragraph 4 of the writ petition the same being
matters of record, the deponent while denies and
disputes the correctness of the statements which are
not borne out of records states that the petitioner was
enrolled as Rifleman/General Duty in the Assam
Rifles on 31st October, 2007 and was posted at 7th
Assam Rifles after completion of basic military and
trade training. The petitioner was granted 90 days
Earned Leave plus 10 days journey period with effect
from 21st January 2013 to 30th April 2013. After
termination of the said leave, he was supposed to
report on 1st May 2013 but he failed to do so. The
petitioner voluntarily reported at Assam Rifles Transit
Camp, Dimapur on 9th July 2016 after remaining OSL
for 1166 days, which is contrary to the rules and
regulations of Assam Rifles, being a disciplinary force.
Therefore, the claim of petitioner of being a good
soldier is not correct. The deponent further states that
the decision of joining Assam Rifles on 1st October
2007 is the wilful decision of the petitioner and
nobody forced him to discontinue his studies in order
to join the force.
6. That with regard to the statements made in
paragraph 6 of the writ petition the deponent submits
that the petitioner never informed the competent
authority of his unit about his aspiration of acquiring
higher educational qualification. Moreover, the
petitioner accepted during the recording of Summary
of Evidence that he requested for 90 days leave plus
10 days journey period on pretext of building house at
his native village.
7. That with regard to the statements made in
paragraph 7 of the writ petition the deponent submits
that the petitioner is trying to gain undue sympathy ofPage 7 of 14
the Hon’ble Court. The respondent authority
respectfully submits that Assam Rifles has its own
well established study centres under IGNOU which
offers educational courses for serving soldiers aspiring
to acquire higher educational qualification. Every year
a number of soldiers get enrolled for numerous
courses after taking permission from the competent
authority and permission is granted to all soldiers
interested in acquiring higher education qualification.
However, in the present case the petitioner never
informed about his willingness of acquiring higher
education qualification to the respondent authority
and without following the norms, he remained OSL
1166 days.
8. That with regard to the statements made in
paragraph 8 of the writ petition the deponent submits
that the statement made in his paragraph is false,
incorrect and misleading. The respondent authority
respectfully submits that the petitioner neither spoke
to his company commander nor did he informed
anyone in his battalion about his aspiration for
perusing of the BA degree. Moreover, petitioner did not
approached anyone in the unit for extension of leave.
During the recording of Summary of Evidence,
petitioner’s Company Havildar Major and Platoon
Havildar also clearly mentioned that they did not
received any phone call / correspondence from the
petitioner during his OSL period. The petitioner has
also accepted the same and declined to cross examine
the witnesses when asked to do so.
9. That with regard to the statements made in
paragraph 9 of the writ petition the deponent submits
that the petitioner was a salaried government servant.
However, being not satisfied with his job, petitioner
remained OSL for 1166 days in order to seek another
job and once he could not achieve the same he
decided to rejoin, which clearly brings out his
lackadaisical attitude towards the noble profession of
Armed Forces. The petitioner himself accepted the
same during the recording of statement in Summary of
Evidence. Moreover, aspiration of the individual to
become a graduate could have been accomplished
within the Force, if he could have followed the laid
down norms.
Page 8 of 14
10. That with regard to the statements made in
paragraph 10 of the writ petition the answering
deponent submits that once the petitioner rejoined his
unit on 9th July 2016 (Afternoon), a court of inquiry
was ordered to investigate the circumstances under
which the petitioner remained OSL for 1166 days
without informing the competent authority at his unit.
Hearing of Charge of the petitioner was conducted as
per Rule 47 of Assam Rifles Rules 2010 and
subsequently Summary of Evidence was recorded as
per provision of Rule 49 of Assam Rifles Rules 2010.
The Recording of Summary of Evidence was
concluded on 6th June 2019 and thereafter SARC
ordered for early disposal of the case under Section
26 (b) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2010. The claim of the
petitioner that the period of absence of 1166 days in
respect of the petitioner was regularised is wrong and
baseless. The pay and allowances in respect of the
petitioner recommended with effect from 9th July
2016 once he reported back to duty, in accordance
with HQ DGAR policy No. A/Pers/Policy/Stoppage of
pay allces/2014/2202 dated 26 May 2014.
11. That with regard to the statements made in
paragraph 11 of the writ petition the answering
deponent submits that the Court of Inquiry
proceedings were initiated against the petitioner to
investigate into the circumstances under which he
remained OSL for 1166 days without informing the
competent authority. After considering the opinion of
the court and the circumstance faced by the accused
as well as the gravity of offence committed by the
petitioner, the Court found the petitioner blameworthy
for the grave offence and recommended strict
disciplinary action against the petitioner for remaining
OSL for 1166 days. Accordingly, Hearing of Charge of
the petitioner was carried out as per Rule 47 of Assam
Rifles Rule 2010 and subsequently Summary of
Evidence was recorded as per provisions of Rule 49 of
Assam Rifles Rule 2010.
12. That with regard to the statements made in
paragraphs 12 and 13 of the writ petition the
answering deponent submits that the disciplinary
proceedings in respect of the petitioner were
conducted in accordance with Assam Rifles Act 2006,Page 9 of 14
Assam Rifles Rules 2010 and as per HQ DGAR policy
No. I. 11018/Law/SARC/2017-211 dated 20th
February 2017. Further, in accordance with Rule 167
of Assam Rifles Rules 2010, the petitioner was
provided with an opportunity to depute a friend for his
assistance during the proceedings and accordingly
Number G/76003F Havildar (General Duty) Mahesh
Singh was deputed by the petitioner as his friend vide
letter dated 28th February 2020 to assist him during
Summary Assam Rifles Court proceedings.
13. That with regard to the statements made in
paragraph 14 of the writ petition the answering
deponent submits that the averments of the petitioner
are false, fabricated, baseless and concocted. It is
stated that in accordance with Para 5 of Rule 60 of
Assam Rifles Rules 2010 timely intimation i.e. four
days in advance was given to the petitioner vide 7
Assam Rifles letter No. 1.11012/A-
Discp/SAR/2020/7986 dated 28th February, 2020,
about his trial by SARC under Section 26 (b) on 4th
March, 2020. The same has also been acknowledged
by the petitioner through receipt signed on 28th
February, 2020.
14. That with regard to the statements made in
paragraphs 15 and 16 of the writ petition the
deponent denies and disputes the correctness of the
statements being false, misleading and concocted. The
respondent authority would like to submit that the
SARC proceedings were verbally communicate to the
petitioner in Hindi. The entire proceedings were
explained to the petitioner and petitioner also signed
the requisite documents after having understood the
complete proceedings. The contention of the petitioner
that the documents signed by him were not handed
over to him is false and baseless. A copy of the SARC
proceedings were handed over to the petitioner vide 7
Assam Rifles letter No. I. 11012/A-
Discp/SAM/2020/67 dated 4th March 2020 and the
same was duly received by the petitioner vide receipt
dated 4th March 2020. Hence, the instant writ petition
is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merit.
15. That with regard to the statements made in
paragraph 17 of the writ petition the deponentPage 10 of 14
submits that, the SARC proceedings in respect of the
petitioner was held at Battalion Headquarters 7
Assam Rifles on 21 January 2020 for remaining OSL
without sufficient cause and the court awarded him
the punishment ‘To suffer rigorous imprisonment
for a period of eighty nine days in force custody
and forfeit pay and allowances for a period of
three months’. The Summary Assam Rifles Court
proceedings were forwarded to Headquarter 5 Sector
Assam Rifles for approval vide 7 Assam Rifles letter
No. I.11012/A-Discp/SAR/2020/7821 dated 27th
January 2020. The Summary Assam Rifles Court
(SARC) proceedings were however set aside by
Deputy Inspector General 5 Sector Assam Rifles with
directions to conduct de-novo Summary Trial vide
Headquarter 5 Sector Assam Rifles letter No.
19011/132/Discp-7 AR/HR/A-2020/868 dated 22nd
February 2020. Accordingly, the de-novo SARC was
held at Battalion Headquarters 7 Assam Rifles on 4th
March 2020 and the individual was tried for
remaining OSL for 1166 days without sufficient cause
under Section 26(b) of the Assam Rifles Act 2006, and
the court awarded him the punishment “To be
dismissed from service. The revised SARC
proceedings were again forwarded to Headquarter 5
Sector AR for approval vide 7 Assam Rifles letter No.
1. 11012/A-Discp/HR/2020/71 dated 04 March
2020. Deputy Inspector General, 5 Sector Assam
Rifles vide letter No. 19011/132/Discp-7AR/DARR/A-
2020/929 dated 25 March 2020 varied the
punishment from ‘To be dismissed from service’ to
be ‘Compulsorily retired from service’. The revised
punishment was further approved by HQ DGAR vide
registered letter No. 1.1018/Law/G/P/SARC-
pdgs/2019/383 dated 11th May 2020. The petitioner
was accordingly sent on compulsorily retirement from
service with effect from 4th March 2020 in accordance
with the order by Deputy Inspector 5 Sector Assam
Rifles vide order No. 19011/132/Discp-7AR/SARC/A-
2020/1104 dated 21 April 2020.
16. That with regard to the statements made in
paragraphs 18 to 20 of the writ petition the deponent
submits that the allegation of the petitioner about
action of the respondent authority being illegal and in
Page 11 of 14
violation to provision of Assam Rifles Act and Rules is
absolutely false and baseless. The actions of
respondent authority are warranted as per Rules 47,
49, 60, 61 and 62 of the Assam Rifles Rules 2010.
Justice has not been denied to the petitioner, the
petitioner has knowingly committed a grave offence by
remaining OSL for 1166 days without informing the
competent authority and is liable to be punished
according to the Law. The action of the respondent is
fair and according to the law of the land. There is no
infringement of the Article 14, 20 (2) and 21 of the
Constitution of India. The SARC proceedings against
the petitioner was conducted in accordance with the
provisions of Assam Rifles Act and Rules. The
allegation for wrongful dismissal from service is
baseless and devoid of merit. Provisions of Assam
Rifles Rule 47, 49, 60, 61 & 62 were complied while
recording Summary of Evidence. Hence, the contention
of the petitioner is false, incorrect, devoid of any merit
and liable to be dismissed.
17. That with regard to the statements made in
paragraph 21 of the writ petition the deponent
submits that the statement is false, incorrect hence
denied. The answering respondent humbly submits
that, from the initial stage of disciplinary proceeding
le, conduct of Court of Inquiry to final stage of
Summary Assam Rifles Court proceedings, the
petitioner was provided with full opportunity to cross
examine the witnesses or to produce any evidence in
his support. However, he falled to produce any
evidence in his support. Hence, the contention of the
petitioner is devoid of merit and liable to be
dismissed.
18. That with regard to the statements made in
paragraphs 22 to 26 of the writ petition, the
respondent authority offer no comments being
submission of the petitioner before the Hon’ble Court.
The answering respondent humbly submits that the
petitioner committed a grave offence of remaining OSL
for 1166 days and the action taken by the respondent
authority is as per the rules, regulations and policy in
vogue. The answering respondent provided adequate
opportunity to the petitioner at different stages of
disciplinary proceedings but he failed to produce any
Page 12 of 14
evidence in his support. Discipline is the bedrock of
Assam Rifles and hence it become pertinent to set an
example while dealing with such offence cases in the
Force, in order to uphold the discipline and ethos of
Assam Rifles. Hence, the contention of the petitioner is
baseless, devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
The deponent in this regard states that the
Hon’ble High Court of Meghalaya, Shillong vide
judgment and order dated 12th March 2020 passed in
the WP (C) No 291/2015 (Rajesh Kumar -Vs- UOI and
others) has observed the issue regarding OSL, as
under:-
‘It may be noticed that the petitioner failed to give any
justification for his prolonged absence from duty for a period
of 04 years, 07 months and 28 days. Reason of such a
prolonged absence given by the petitioner is hardly convincing
and does not inspire confidence. He was required to rejoin his
duty immediately after completing of casual leave of fifteen
days. Neither the petitioner applied for extension of leave nor
did he inform about his whereabouts to the unit till he rejoined
voluntarily on 16 May 2009. It also cannot be said that penalty
of dismissal from service is disproportionate because the
petitioner belongs to a disciplined force i.e. Assam Rifles and
maintain highest discipline. The total period of absence is so
high that fully justify the penalty of dismissal. The petitioner
therefore cannot be allowed to state that the penalty of
dismissal of disproportionate to the gravity of the charges
against him.
In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this
Writ Petition and is accordingly dismissed’.
19. That with regard to the statements made in
paragraphs 22, 23 and 24 of the writ petition, it is
humbly submitted that the petitioner was OSL for
1166 days without any valid reason. The petitioner
was subject to Assam Rifles Act, 2006 and the offence
of OSL is punishable under sec 26 (b) of Assam Rifles
Act, 2006. The allegation of the petitioner that he was
forced to signed on the discharge paper is absolutely
false since the petitioner was not discharged, he was
dismissed from service for the grave offence of
remaining OSL for 1166 days. Armed Forces are
known for their discipline and upright conduct, hence
it becomes pertinent to set an example while dealing
Page 13 of 14
with such offences in the force, in order to uphold the
discipline and ethos of Armed Forces. The respondent
authorities are high ranking government official
having due regard for the Laws of the Union of India
and have acted according to the law. Therefore, the
action of the respondent authority is legal and
justifiable. Justice has not been denied to the
petitioner. He has committed a grave offence of
remaining OSL for 1081 days and has been punished
according to the Law by the competent authority.
Armed Forces stands on the bedrock of discipline and
person subject to Armed Forces cannot be allowed to
come and go from duty as they please. This kind of
infraction if permitted will shake the structure of
the organization and will badly affect security of the
country. Since, the respondent authority has acted
according to the Laws of the Union of India. Therefore,
it is humbly requested that the instant writ petition
may please be dismissed for being devoid of merit
and substance.
9. Reading the aforesaid averments made in the
affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent
authorities, it is apparent that the charges leveled against the
petitioner having been fully established and proved, the
aforesaid impugned penalty of compulsory retirement has
been awarded. It further appears that the aforesaid penalty is
proportionate to the gravamen of the charge proved. Hence,
this court finds no illegality or irregularity in the impugned
order dated 25.03.2020, and accordingly, the writ petition is
bereft of any merit whatsoever.
10. Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed and is
disposed of. No order as to costs.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Page 14 of 14