KUMUD CHOUDHURY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. T. C Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The appellant is before this Court assailing the order dated 10.04.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.6371/2012. Through the said order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. The respondents herein had proceeded against the appellant on the charge of unauthorized absence between the dates 22.12.2005 to 21.02.2006. On the appellant being held guilty of the charge, a second show cause notice was issued and thereafter the disciplinary authority through the order dated 10.10.2007, dismissed the appellant from service. The appellant claiming to be aggrieved by such dismissal order was before the learned Single Judge in the said writ petition.

(3.) The brief fact as pleaded therein was that the petitioner was appointed on 07.12.1992 as a Constable in the Assam Special Reserve Force Battalion. He had to leave the station on 22.12.2005. The case put forth by the appellant was that he was constrained to do so due to the serious illness of his wife. In that circumstance, though he had left the post at Nalbari on the night of 22.12.2005 with the service rifle and 50 rounds of ammunition, the appellant thereafter deposited the rifle and the 50 rounds of ammunition on the next day i.e. 23.12.2005 at the Sadar Police Station, Kokrajhar. For that act, the appellant had sought to put forth an explanation that he was forced to leave the station on the night of 22.12.2005 and he has rectified the situation on the next day by voluntarily depositing the weapon and the 50 rounds of ammunition, which were with him. The said contention as put forth in the writ petition was in fact, his reply to the show cause notice earlier issued to him. In that background, in the departmental proceeding No.13/2005 against the appellant, four charges had been framed. In respect of the charges as referred to as contained in Charge Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the enquiry officer held that the same to be proved. In so far as Charge No.4, which related to the earlier conduct of the appellant, the enquiry officer had held the same as not being necessary and accordingly was held as not proved.