Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
S.R. SEN, J.
Rfn (GD) R. Ramu – Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 72 of 2013
Decided On : 5.5.2015
Assam Rifles - Deputation Extension - Assam Rifles Act, 1941, Assam Rifles Act, 2006 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the petitioner's deputation extension request, the authority's power to conduct a court of enquiry, and the conduct of the court of enquiry under the Assam Rifles Act, 1941 and Assam Rifles Act, 2006.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Rifleman in Assam Rifles, sought extension of deputation to SVPNPA, which was rejected. He approached the High Court, which initially allowed the deputation but later vacated the order. The Division Bench directed the petitioner to file a representation for extension, which was again rejected. The petitioner was subsequently released from deputation and a court of enquiry was conducted without giving him an opportunity to be heard.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the court of enquiry was conducted without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, and set aside the impugned order, ordering a fresh proceeding if desired by the department and reinstatement if found innocent.
Issues: The issues before the court were whether the authority was empowered to conduct a court of enquiry, whether it could be conducted in the absence of the petitioner, and whether the punishment awarded was too harsh.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the court of enquiry cannot be conducted in the absence of the person affected, and set aside the impugned order, ordering a fresh proceeding if desired by the department and reinstatement if found innocent.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and ordered a fresh proceeding if desired by the department and reinstatement if found innocent.
1. The petitioner’s case in a nutshell is that:-
“The petitioner was enrolled in Assam Rifles No. 03/07/1994 as a Rfn (GD). While posting with Assam Rifles Administrative Support Unit, Happy Valley, Shillong, the Directorate General Assam Rifles (herein after referred as HQ D.G.A.R. sent him on deputation to SVPNPA (herein after referred as SVPNPA) for a period of 3(three) years w.e.f. 13.12.2005. His performance in the SVPNPA was found very exceptional. By a letter dated the 27th day of January, 2009, the Director, SVPNPA informed HQ D.G.A.R. that as per deputation Policy of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the deputation period of Central Armed Police Forces Personnel may be extended upto a maximum period of 5(five) years and as academy is facing acute shortage of constables for want of nomination from the Central Armed Police Forces, he request HQ D.G.A.R. to extend the deputation period of the petitioner.
By a letter dated the 6th day of May, 2009, the Director, SVPNPA informed the HQ D.G.A.R that they are utilizing the service of the petitioner in Motor Training Branch and he is involved in various training related duties and academy seeks absorption of personnel at the level of constables who possess proven skill and further informed him that constable R. Ramu possesses the requisite proven skills in driving, maintenance and mechanism of light, medium and heavy vehicles, which is very useful to the academy and request the HQ D.G.A.R. to absorb him as constable (Driver) in the SVPNPA in the public interest. The Director, SVPNPA by a letter dated the 3rd day of July, 2009, informed the HQ D.G.A.R that a committee headed by Joint Director and other three Senior IPS Officers have conducted a test on the performance of Rifleman R Ramu and has graded him the best performer in the Motor Mechanism filed and therefore the committee has recommended for permanent absorption of the petitioner and further requested the Directorate General Assam Rifles in the interest of the academy to issue No Objection Certificate for his transfer to the academy.
By a letter dated the 31st day of July, 2009, the Directorate General Assam Rifles informed the Director, SVPNPA that permanent absorption and extension of tenure beyond permissible limit is not permitted and the Assam Rifles is agreeable to discharge Rfn (GD) R Ramu for him to re-employ him at his Organization and request him not to insist in the interest of Assam Rifles.
By a signal No. A 5212, dated the 22nd day of April, 2010, the Directorate General Assam Rifles sent one No. G/144267 Rfn (GD) Suraj Thapa for deputation to Intelligence Bureau in the rank of Security Assistant (Exe) for an initial period of 5(Five) years. The Directorate General Assam Rifles by a Signal No. A 5220, dated 27th day of April, 2010, issued No objection Certificate to one No. G/76235 A Rfn (GD) T. Sonkhosei Haokip for posting under Bureau of Police Research and Development.
The Directorate General Assam Rifles by a signal No. A 5212, dated the 17th day of May 2012, sent the 22 (twenty two) Rfn (GD) on deputation of National Security Guard (NSG) w.e.f. 29/04/2012 for a initial period of 5 (five) years.
When the authority of SVPNPA for the public interest request HQ D.G.A.R to extend the deputation tenure of the petitioner and to issue No objection Certificate, HQ D.G.A.R informed the Director, SVPNPA that extension beyond permissible limit is not permitted and therefore not to insist them in that matter. In view of non-issuance of No objection Certificate and not passing any favorable order from end of the lending organization, he was constrained to file WP(C) No. 21144 of 2009 and W.P.M.P. No. 58 of 2010 before the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad seeking a direction to the borrowing organization to permit the petitioner to continue in service and by an Order dated the 18th day of February, 2010, passed in W.P.M.P. No. 58 of 2010, the single judge of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicat
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
