Safiya Malik

In a significant judgement, the Gauhati High Court has set aside a previous decision that had directed the reinstatement of a former Assam Rifles employee. The appellate bench found that the learned Single Judge had overstepped by reconsidering a discharge order that had already attained finality in an earlier judgment. As a result, the respondent's petition for reinstatement was dismissed, and the government’s appeal was allowed.

The case revolves around the premature discharge of a rifleman from Assam Rifles, effective from January 1, 2012. The petitioner had initially sought voluntary discharge citing personal reasons, specifically mentioning domestic issues and the need to care for his aging mother. His request was promptly considered, and the competent authority approved his discharge following the prescribed procedures. However, the petitioner later challenged the voluntary nature of his discharge, alleging that the application was submitted under duress and that the authorities had failed to conduct a proper examination of his request before its approval.

The petitioner initially filed a writ petition in 2013 challenging the discharge order. He contended that he was coerced into submitting his resignation and had not been informed of its implications. The court, in its judgment dated August 5, 2015, refused to interfere with the discharge certificate but directed the Assam Rifles authorities to reconsider his grievance regarding reinstatement. The court specifically asked whether the petitioner had applied to withdraw his resignation within the prescribed 90-day period.

Following this directive, the Director General of Assam Rifles passed an order on November 5, 2015, rejecting the petitioner's request for reinstatement. The order stated that the petitioner had not withdrawn his resignation within the mandatory time limit and reiterated that voluntary discharge amounted to resignation under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, thereby forfeiting past service benefits.

Subsequently, the petitioner filed a fresh writ petition in 2016, challenging the rejection order. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition, quashed the rejection order of November 5, 2015, and directed the petitioner’s reinstatement, though without back wages. The judgment also raised concerns about the fairness of the initial discharge process, stating that the authorities had not sufficiently ensured that the resignation was voluntary.

On appeal, the Division Bench found that the Single Judge’s ruling had wrongly revisited the validity of the petitioner’s discharge, which had already been upheld in the 2015 judgment. The appellate court noted:

“Vide order dated 05.08.2015, the Writ Court remanded the matter to the Director General to consider only the point of whether the respondent/writ petitioner had filed any application for withdrawal of his resignation within the 90-day limit or not. While remanding the matter, the Writ Court refused to interfere with the discharge order, which had attained finality.”

The Division Bench further stated that the Single Judge should have limited the review to the correctness of the Director General’s 2015 decision and not the original discharge order itself. The court recorded:

“The learned Single Judge was supposed to only examine the validity of the order dated 05.11.2015 passed by the Director General of Assam Rifles pursuant to the remand made by the Writ Court. However, the learned Single Judge has not examined the validity of the said order and has interfered with the discharge order, which was not permissible.”

Additionally, the court found that reliance on a notification applicable to CRPF personnel was inappropriate, as Assam Rifles had its own internal procedures for discharge:

“The learned Single Judge has also erred in relying on a Notification dated 17.05.1990, issued by the Director General of CRPF, New Delhi in respect of CRPF personnel only, and in applying the said notification in relation to the discharge order of the respondent/writ petitioner.”

The Division Bench examined the procedures in place for voluntary discharge within Assam Rifles. It noted that the organization followed specific guidelines under its Record Branch Instructions (RBI) and additional policy directives issued by the Director General. These guidelines ensured that any request for premature discharge was properly examined.

The appellate court found that before approving the petitioner’s discharge, the Assam Rifles authorities had complied with all necessary procedures. The records included a written certificate from the petitioner confirming that he was resigning of his own free will, without coercion or undue influence. The court noted:

“The past conduct of the respondent/writ petitioner, as stated by the appellants in their counter affidavit as well as in the order dated 05.11.2015, does not entitle him to be retained in Assam Rifles, which is a disciplined force.”

The Division Bench also examined the petitioner’s service history. The records indicated that he had been penalized multiple times for disciplinary infractions, including unauthorized absences and intoxication while on duty. These infractions had led to punishments under military discipline regulations, further supporting the decision to deny reinstatement.

Based on the above findings, the appellate court set aside the Single Judge’s order directing reinstatement and dismissed the writ petition. The court stated:

“In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the impugned judgment & order dated 28.02.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.2461/2016 and the order dated 10.06.2019 passed in I.A. (Civil) No.1858/2019 cannot be sustained. Hence, the same are set aside. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. Resultantly, the writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner also stands dismissed.”

Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Bikram Rana
Case Number: WA No. 298 of 2021
Bench: Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi, Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair

[Read/Download order]