The court's decision was influenced by the acknowledgment of the penalty by the petitioner and the expert opinion on the disputed signature, which supported the imposition of the penalty under the Army Act, 1950.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J. - Heard Shri JC Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri SS Roy, learned Central Government Counsel (CGC) for the Union of India. Also heard Shri D Doley, learned State Counsel, Assam for the respondent No. 9.

2. Considering that the pleadings are complete and that this matter is pending since the year 2016, the same is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 02.09.2016 by which his order of posting to Bhutan has been cancelled. To appreciate the rival contentions, the facts of the case may be stated in brief as follows.

4. The petitioner is an employee of the General Reserve Engineer Force (hereinafter for short GREF) under the Border Roads Organization, which is governed by the Ministry of BRTF. The employee of GREF are entitled to Bhutan Compensatory Allowance (in short BCA) posting on fulfillment of certain criteria, namely, 5 years of Good ACRs and 26 months compulsory service in High Altitude. It is the case of the petitioner that having fulfilled the aforesaid criteria, an order dated 09.06.2016 was issued, by which the petitioner, who was the SFWALA was transferred to Bhutan. However, by the impugned order dated 02.09.2016, the aforesaid order dated 09.06.2016 was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner was earlier awarded the penalty of "severe reprimand" under Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950, which was intimated vide communications dated 22.06.2016 and 18.07.2016. It is the case of the petitioner that at no point of time, he was made aware of imposition of the aforesaid penalty and the very fact of issuing the transfer order dated 09.06.2016 substantiates his claim.

5. Shri Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an order of transfer under BCA is issued only when the employee fulfils the necessary criteria, including 5 years of Good ACRs. When such transfer order is issued, it is assumed that the employee, in question, has fulfilled the necessary criteria, including the last 5 years ACRs which should have been Good, the learned counsel submits. Shri Borah argues that at no point of time, the order of imposition of penalty was communicated and therefore, in absence of such communication, the cancellation order dated 02.09.2016 could not have been issued.

6. During the course of the proceedings, the records of the case were produced, which contain the order of penalty which was duly acknowledged by the petitioner himself. The petitioner having disputed such acknowledgement, this Court in IA(C) No.916/2019 had passed an order dated 22.05.2019 allowing the impleadment of the Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratory, Assam as respondent no. 9 and the disputed signature was, accordingly, sent for examination by the official respondents.

7. Shri Roy, learned CGC has placed before this Court the expert opinion on the disputed signature dated 19.02.2020 which states that the signature is indeed of the petitioner. Learned CGC submits that since no independent challenge has been made to the aforesaid expert opinion, the grounds of challenge in the present writ petition fall through. Shri Roy, learned CGC further submits that the prayer in the writ petition is confined to a challenge made to the order dated 02.09.2016 and there is no manner of challenge whatsoever, to the order of penalty of "severe reprimand".

8. Shri Doley, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 9 submits that the expert opinion has been rendered by following the due process of law by comparing the disputed signature with the signatures of the petitioner appearing in a number of other documents.

9. Shri Borah, learned counsel in his rejoinder submits that the impugned cancellation dated 02.09.2016 was passed on a previous order of imposition of penalty. He accordingly, contends that there may not be an absolute embargo for reconsideration of his case after a certain period if the petitioner meets the requirement for gran