Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Gau) 52

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Rajib Dowerah S/o Durgeshwar Duwarah – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India and Others – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 6780 of 2025
Decided On : 05-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : D.P. Borah
For the Respondent: B. Chakraborty

Administrative authority must consider applications filed under relevant procedural statutes within a reasonable time frame, reinforcing statutory obligations.

Headnote:(A) Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Section 117(1) and 117(2) - Dismissal from service - Petitioner was charged with misconduct and subsequently dismissed. Application under Section 117(2) remained unconsidered. Court directed consideration of said application within three months. (Paras 4-6)

(B) Jurisdiction - The court held that it refrains from deciding the merits of the case, leaving it to the authority to decide the application. (Para 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a permanent resident of Dhemaji, Assam, was dismissed from service following guilty findings on several charges. Application for reconsideration was filed but not addressed by the authority.

Findings of Court:
The court ordered the concerned authority to consider the petitioner's application under Section 117(2) of the Act and dispose of it timely.

Issues: The key issue was whether the petitioner's application under Section 117(2) should be addressed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that administrative authorities are tasked with evaluating applications as per statute, maintaining jurisdictional restraint over merits.

Result: Writ petition was disposed of with directions.

Table of Content
1. need for consideration of section 117(2) application. (Para 1 , 5)
2. details of the petitioner's service and charges. (Para 3 , 4)
3. direction to consider the pending application within 3 months. (Para 6 , 7)

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. D. P. Borah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. B. Chakraborty, the learned CGC who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 4.

2. Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, this Court dispenses with the service of notice upon the respondent No. 5.

3. At the outset, it is relevant to take note that the petitioner herein is a permanent resident of the district of Dhemaji, Assam. Pursuant to a recruitment process initiated at Dhemaji on 13.11.1998, the petitioner was appointed as a Const. (GD) and joined the Headquarter Sector, Border Security Force at Rani, Azara, Guwahati, Assam. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner was posted at various places. While performing duties as Mess Commander Officer at THQ Mess Factory, Baramulla, a charge- sheet was served upon the petitioner on 20.09.2023, charging him with a total of five charges. The petitioner submitted his written statement to the said charge-sheet. The General Security Force Court conducted fact-finding proceedings and held the petitioner guilty in respect of the third, fourth, and fifth charges by a report dated 01.11.2023.

4. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an application under Section 117(1) of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (for short ‘the Act of 1968’),before the concerned authority. The concerned authority, vide an order dated 22.10.2024, rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 117(1) of the Act of 1968, and thereupon an order was passed on 26.10.2024 thereby dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Section 117(2) of the Act of 1968 before the respondent No. 2 on 18.03.2025. The said application, however, has not yet been considered, and it is under such circumstances that the present writ petition has been filed.

5. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and is of the opinion that since the petitioner has approached the respondent No. 2 by filing an application under Section 117(2) of the Act of 1968, the said application ought to have been considered.

6. Considering the above, this Court, therefore, disposes of the instant writ petition with a direction upon the respondent No. 2 to consider the application filed by the petitioner on 18.03.2025, which shall be treated as an application under Section 117(2) of the Act of 1968, and dispose of the same within a period of 3 (three) months from the date a certified copy of the instant order is served upon the respondent No. 2.

7. Before parting with the record, this Court, however, makes it clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the case, and it shall be absolutely within the jurisdiction of the respondent No. 2 to decide the said application filed under Section 117(2) of the Act of 1968 in accordance with law.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document