Discharge from service upheld as valid; allegations of coercion and violation of natural justice not substantiated, reaffirming that factual disputes cannot be adjudicated under Article 226.

JUDGMENT :

The discharge from service of the petitioner from the post of Rect/ Lab Assistant under the Assam Rifles, vide order dated 28.08.2017 is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . The grounds of challenge, in brief, are violation of the principles of natural justice and that the impugned action is a forced one whereby the consent of the petitioner has been wrongly shown.

2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, is that pursuant to a recruitment drive held in March 2016, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Rect / Lab Assistant in the Assam Rifles and he had joined the Training Centre, Dimapur on 01.01.2017 and had undergone the Military Basic Training. However, an incident had occurred on August, 2017 when the petitioner was detailed with night guard duty in the family line of the Training Centre. According to the petitioner, he had heard a noise from a nearby family quarter and he had accordingly gone there and saw a girl crying loudly and had tried to pacify her. However, he was surprised that in the next morning he was called to the main office and was assaulted and kept in custody in a dark room with no light, fan or even ventilation for 10 days. It is further contended that his signatures were obtained on some papers and the contents were not known to him. He had also sustained injuries because of the assault and was ultimately discharged from service on 28.08.2017. The petitioner alleges that he comes from a poor family and belongs to the ST Community and after being treated for the injuries, he could file this writ petition.

3. I have heard Ms. S. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri SS Roy, learned CGC.

4. Ms. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire action of discharging him from service vide the order dated 28.08.2017 is vitiated in law as the same was taken in a forceful manner and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and the procedures laid down. It is submitted that there was no proper inquiry on the nature of allegations which itself was incorrect. It is contended that the petitioner had gone to the place on bona fide reasons as he heard one girl crying loudly and for such bona fide action, the allegations against the petitioner were wrongly made.

5. With regard to the nature of the procedure adopted, the learned counsel has emphasized that everything was done by coercion and the petitioner was assaulted for more than 10 days and he was kept in custody in a dark room without any light, fan or even ventilation and his signatures were obtained in papers without the contents of the same known to him. It is submitted that the documents enclosed with the writ petition would show that the procedure adopted was only a formality and the discharge, therefore is not sustainable in law.

6. She has drawn the attention of the Court to the discharge certificate dated 28.08.2017 and has contended that under serial no. 8, the grounds of discharge has been written as “Own Request”. She has submitted that at no point of time the petitioner had expressed any desire to get himself discharged from the services.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the documents annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents on 31.05.2019. She has submitted that in the said affidavit-in-opposition, an application for discharge has been annexed which is in Hindi language whereas the signature of the petitioner is in English language. It is the submission that when the petitioner puts his signature in English language, there was no occasion for having the application made in Hindi language. She has also drawn the attention of the Court to the affidavit alleged to have been submitted by her client dated 24.08.2017. It is submitted that when the application for discharge was dated 23.08.2017, there was no occasion for submitting an affi