ROHIT KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(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 dtd. 6/9/2023, Discharge Certificate dtd. 23/11/2023, for setting aside and quashing order dtd. 1/8/2024, and to allow the petitioner to rejoin service, by regularizing the suspension period and for grant of all service benefits.

(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 26/8/2015, 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 dtd. 21/8/2023, on examination of the same, the petitioner was issued with a discharge order dtd. 23/11/2023.

(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 dtd. 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 dtd. 14/7/2022, in the case of Amarendra Kumar Pandey vs. Union of India and 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.