SHRI KAM DEO DAS Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. H.S.Paonam, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. S.Rupachandra, learned ASG for the respondents in both the writ petitions.

(2.) In these writ petitions, the petitioner, Shri Kam Deo Das, who is serving as a Senior Medical Officer in the rank of Deputy Commandant in the Assam Rifles, has approached this Court with certain grievances regarding the convening of the revision proceeding of the General Assam Rifles Court (GARC for short) mainly raising the plea of violation of principles of natural justice. Ordinarily, in matters relating to disciplinary proceedings, aggrieved party would be advised first to exhaust the alternative remedy by way of appeal, review, etc. provided under the service rules before the Court considers invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, the petitioner could have been also directed to avail the alternative remedy provided under the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 and Rules framed thereunder for redressal of his grievances. However, the manner in which the revision proceedings of GARC was initiated and conducted as stated by the petitioner has made this Court to examine the issues rather than relegating this matter to the alternative remedy available.

(3.) That a General Assam Rifle Court hereinafter referred to as the "GARC" was initiated against the petitioner under Section 26(A) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 for "Absenting Himself Without Leave" for 606 days. The petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge and was thereafter awarded sentence of forfeiture of one year's service for the purpose of promotion by the GARC held on January, 2015. The said sentence, however, was subject to confirmation from the competent authority as provided under Section 129 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006. Section 135 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 further provides that any finding or sentence of an Assam Rifle Court which requires confirmation may be once revised by order of the Confirming Authority. In the present case, the Confirming Authority instead of confirming the sentence, directed for revision of the sentence imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 23.9.2015, which led to the initiation of the revision proceeding of the GARC which was held on 19.10.2015 whereupon the penalty of compulsory retirement from service was imposed on the petitioner and promulgated on 29.10.2015 which are subject matter of challenge in these two writ petitions.