1. The petitioner who is serving in Assam Rifles as Subedar [BNR] by means of this writ petition has challenged the findings of the Court of Inquiry and the resultant chargesheet dated 16.05.2017.

2. The core ground of challenge, as alleged, is that General Assam Rifles Court, the GARC in short, does not have the jurisdiction to take cognizance of and try the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. The perspective of the challenge as laid by the petitioner may briefly be stated at the outset.

There is no dispute that after entering in the service, the petitioner, now has been serving as the Subedar [Building and Road] of Headquarters, 10 Sector, Assam Rifles, attached to the Headquarters, 7th Sector, Assam Rifles, was attached to the Headquarters, 21 Sector, Assam Rifles, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this court at the time of filing the writ petition. The petitioner has averred that based on a telecast alleging corruption in Assam Rifles, a court of inquiry was convened by the Headquarters, DGAR by the order No.12015/A(Disp.)/ Mathru Bhumi News/2014/1129 dated 29.09.2014 followed by an amendment order dated 01.10.2014 to the convening order in respect of the court of inquiry. Further, a corrigendum dated 07.10.2014 was issued pertaining to the convening order dated 29.09.2014 by HQ, DGAR. Pursuant to the said convening order, a court of inquiry was conducted by HQ, IGAR [East] at Srikona, Silchar, Assam from 09.10.2014 and on the subsequent dates followed by recording of Summary of Evidence at HQ, 7th Sector, Assam Rifles at Tuensang, Nagaland. According to the petitioner, he was not given any opportunity to cross the prime witness, namely Mr. C.C. Mathew and thus, the respondents had contravened the provisions of Rule 183(8) and Rule 49(2) of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010 and the court of inquiry, improperly and in contravention of the mandatory rule was brought to its end. The authorised officer has recorded the Summary of Evidence. The petitioner has averred also as under:

“More so, basing upon purported videography said to be string operation, which is not recognised method for crime detection in India, the convening authority has also taken the cognizance issuing chargesheet dated 16th May, 2017 to the petitioner under Section 55 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 for committing offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with alternative charge under Section 49 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 and the petitioner was also charged under Section 49 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 as second charge and further, the said convening authority without application of mind has ordered for general Assam Rifles Court on which (sic.) has assembled on 8th June, 2017.”

The statements of the witnesses have been initially recorded during the court of inquiry. In Para-5 of the writ petition, the petitioner has given the narrative of contradictory statements by the various witnesses but in Para-6 of the writ petition, the petitioner has alleged that the Presiding Officer [of the court of inquiry] in utter disregard to the provisions of law and in violation thereof, did not allow the person, namely Mr. C.C. Mathew who has claimed to have given bribe to the petitioner to be cross-examined. The denial, according to the petitioner was in gross violation of Rule 183 of Assam Rifles Rules, 2010. It would be apposite to extract Rule 183 [Chapter XV] of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010.

“183. Procedure of courts of inquiry.- (1) The proceedings of a court of inquiry shall not be open to the public and only such persons may attend the proceedings as are permitted by the court to do so.

(2) The evidence of all witnesses shall be taken on oath or affirmation and signed by them after the same has been read over and explained to them.

Explanation. The court shall ad