Safiya Malik

The Gauhati High Court has directed the reinstatement of a former constable of the 5th Assam Police Battalion after setting aside his dismissal from service. The matter was heard and adjudicated by Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair, who recorded that the authorities failed to comply with previous court directives regarding the petitioner’s disciplinary proceedings. The court held that since the disciplinary inquiry report was not made available and the proceedings could not continue due to lost records, the petitioner must be deemed to have remained in service from the date of his termination. The petitioner was denied back wages due to delay in approaching the authorities, but the court ordered that his pay be fixed notionally from 1995 onwards with all consequential benefits.

The petitioner had been dismissed from service in 1995 following an inquiry into his unauthorized absence. The disciplinary proceedings had concluded with an adverse finding against him, leading to his termination. In 2006, the Gauhati High Court had set aside his dismissal and directed a fresh inquiry, requiring the authorities to furnish him with a copy of the inquiry report. The court had further directed that if the report could not be provided, the petitioner should be exonerated and reinstated. The authorities failed to comply with this directive, and the petitioner approached the court again in 2019, seeking implementation of the 2006 order. The respondent authorities submitted that the inquiry records were lost and that further action could not be taken.

Also Read: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Airline Ticket Forgery Case, Holds "Appellant Alone Could Have Manipulated the Document"

The petitioner was serving as a constable when he was issued a show-cause notice in 1994 regarding his alleged unauthorized absence from duty. The notice stated that his absence had resulted in extremist elements overpowering the sentry and other guards, leading to the looting of arms, ammunition, and a wireless handset. The petitioner was subsequently dismissed from service on April 5, 1995, and his period of absence was treated as leave without pay. His appeal against the dismissal was rejected by the appellate authority in 1998.

The petitioner challenged his dismissal in a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court, which was decided on April 11, 2006. The court found that the petitioner had not been furnished with a copy of the inquiry officer’s report and that this amounted to a violation of natural justice. The court directed that the disciplinary proceedings should recommence from the stage of furnishing the inquiry report to the petitioner. The order further stated that if the report was not provided, the authorities must pass consequential orders exonerating the petitioner.

The petitioner approached the authorities multiple times after the 2006 judgment, requesting compliance with the court’s directives. In 2016, he submitted a formal representation seeking reinstatement. However, the authorities did not act on his request. In 2019, he filed a fresh writ petition before the High Court, asserting that the respondents had willfully disobeyed the 2006 order.

The State, represented by the Additional Advocate General, submitted that the records of the petitioner’s disciplinary proceedings had been misplaced and remained untraceable. It was contended that the petitioner had delayed in following up on the court’s 2006 order and that he had only approached the authorities after a decade. The State further argued that due to this delay, he was not entitled to back wages.

The High Court examined whether the authorities had complied with its 2006 directive and whether the petitioner was entitled to relief despite the delay in seeking enforcement. The court observed that its previous order had attained finality since the State had not challenged it. The court noted: "It is an admitted position that the petitioner came to be discharged from his service vide order, dated 05.04.1995, issued by the disciplinary authority in pursuance of a disciplinary proceeding so instituted against him in the matter."

The court recorded that the authorities had failed to either provide the inquiry report or exonerate the petitioner, as directed in 2006. It further held that since the disciplinary proceedings could not be continued due to lost records, the petitioner must be deemed to have remained in service. The court stated: "Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner, herein, ought to be deemed to have been reinstated in his service immediately on passing of the judgment & order, dated 11.04.2006, by this Court in WP(c)5003/2001."

The High Court directed that the petitioner’s period of service from 1995 onwards should be treated as continuous for all purposes, including pension and seniority. However, it declined to grant back wages due to the petitioner’s delay in pursuing the matter. The court noted: "The laches having been noticed hereinabove, on the part of the petitioner, herein, in following-up the directions passed by this Court vide judgment & order, dated 11.04.2006, in WP(c)5003/2001, and he, having approached the respondent authorities only after a decade having elapsed, the petitioner would not be entitled to any back wages, moreso, when he had not discharged any duties after being discharged from his service."

Also Read: "No New Schools, No Unilateral Decisions" – Calcutta High Court Halts La Martiniere Board’s Actions

The court issued specific directives, stating that the petitioner should be deemed to have continued in service from April 5, 1995. His pay and allowances were to be notionally fixed from that date, incorporating all revisions and financial upgrades that he would have received had he continued in service. The court directed that he should be paid his salary prospectively from the date of the judgment. It was further ordered that the period from 1995 to the present should be counted for pensionary benefits.

The court concluded the matter with the following directions: "The petitioner, herein, be deemed to have continued in his service w.e.f. 05.04.1995. The period of service w.e.f. 05.04.1995, till the date of passing of this order shall be held to be continuous in respect of the petitioner. The petitioner’s pay and allowances shall be notionally fixed, incorporating pay revisions and financial upgradations, but back wages shall not be paid. The petitioner shall be entitled to his salary from the date of passing of this order. The period from 05.04.1995 till the date of this order shall be counted for pension and other benefits."

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. N.J. Khataniar, Advocate; Ms. P. Kashyap, Advocate; Mr. M.K. Borah, Advocate; Mr. M.K. Choudhury, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. P.N. Goswami, Additional Advocate General, Assam.

Case Title: Fazlur Rahman v. The State of Assam & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025:GAU-AS:2308

Case Number: WP(C)/2546/2019

Bench: Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair

[Read/Download order]