Back
2026 Supreme(Gau) 793
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
No. 031522257 Ex Constable G.D. Ujjal Singha S/o Shri Abir Singha – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India and Others – Respondents
WP (C) No. 5001 of 2015
Decided On : 29-04-2026
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Disciplinary Action/Dismissal
Headnote
(B) Judicial Review - Power of interference - Scope of examining inquiry findings - Interference limited to cases of perversity - Findings supported by material on record. (Paras 14, 15, 17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a member of a disciplined force, was dismissed from service following a departmental inquiry. The charges included forging an official identity document to misrepresent his identity, contracting a second marriage while the first was subsisting, and failing to inform the department about the registration of a criminal case against him.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the departmental findings regarding forgery, bigamy, and concealment of criminal information were substantiated by evidence produced during the inquiry. The disciplinary authority's decision was based on valid material, and the penalty was considered proportionate to the established misconduct.
Issues: Whether the departmental inquiry findings were supported by sufficient evidence and whether the penalty of dismissal imposed on the petitioner was proportionate and justifiable.
Ratio Decidendi: Disciplinary authorities maintain the authority to impose dismissal for serious misconduct in uniformed services; judicial interference is restricted to cases where findings lack evidentiary support or suffer from perversity, neither of which was present in this instance.
Result: Petition dismissed.
For the Appellant : S. Nath
For the Respondents: S.K. Medhi, D.C. Borah
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the petition challenging departmental dismissal proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. summary of rival contentions regarding the validity of enquiry procedures and findings. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. judicial verification of evidence supporting charges of forgery, bigamy, and concealment. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. proportionality of dismissal penalty for misconduct in a disciplined force. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
1. Heard Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned CGC appearing for the respondent.
2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order dated 11-12-2014, imposing a penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner, on conclusion of a Departmental Proceeding instituted against him.
3. The petitioner, who at the relevant point of time, was serving as a Constable in the 152 Bn. of CRPF, was issued with a memorandum of charge dated 29-05-2014, instituting a Departmental Proceeding against him, basing on 03 (three) Article of Charges. The petitioner submitted his written statement against the said Memorandum of charge dated 29-05-2014. However, the same being found to be not satisfactory, an enquiry was directed to be held against the petitioner. The petitioner participated in the enquiry proceeding and on conclusion of the same, the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report on 12-10-2014. A copy of the said enquiry report was also furnished to the petitioner, who had submitted his representation, thereon, on 16-11-2014. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority, on consideration of the enquiry report, basing on the materials coming on record, as well as the representation submitted by the petitioner to the enquiry report, proceeded vide order dated 11-12-2014, to impose the penalty of dismissal of service upon the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved by the imposition of the said penalty vide order dated 11-12-2014, instituted an appeal against the same before the Appellate Authority vide his appeal memo dated 16-11-2014. The Appellate Authority, thereafter, vide order dated 13-03-2015, on considering the contentions raised by the petitioner as well as the contemporaneous records, proceeded to reject the appeal so preferred by the petitioner, thereby, affirming the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition.
4. Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has submitted that the Article of Charge No. 1 levels against the petitioner an allegation of having entered into a relationship with one L. Nandita Singha, by introducing himself as Devasish Singha and for the purpose had tampered his identity card, to be perverse. Mr. Nath submits that the said charge was not established during the enquiry and no material was brought on record that the petitioner had forged his identity card to project himself as Devasish Singha, in place of Ujjal Singha, for the purpose of entering into a relationship followed by marriage with said L. Nandita Singha. He submits that the respondent authorities had not proceeded to carry out any forensic examination of the purported forged documents allegedly furnished by the petitioner to said L. Nandita Singha and accordingly, the conclusions reached that the petitioner has forged the said document not being established, the said charge framed against the petitioner would have to be held to have not been established.
5. With regard to the Article of Charge No. 2, it is submitted that the same pertains to the allegation levelled against the petitioner of having contracted a second marriage with one Premabati Singha, without divorcing his first wife L. Nandita Singha. Mr. Nath submits that the marriage with L. Nandita Singha not having been established to having been contracted and it also not being established that the said marriage was so performed by following the rituals so mandated
