Disciplinary actions in armed forces must maintain the highest standards of conduct, and procedural fairness is essential but does not negate the gravity of misconduct.

JUDGMENT

1. This Writ Appeal has been filed, challenging the order dated 05.03.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P(C) No.220 of 2022, in and by which, the Writ Petition, seeking reinstatement was dismissed as devoid of merits.Brief Facts as put forth by the Appellant:

2. The Appellant was enrolled in the Assam Rifles as Rifleman (Barber) and had rendered unblemished service till his suspension order. There were two charges levelled against him, namely, i) under Section 55 and 23(d) of the Assam Rifles Act for firing 3 shots from his service weapon against his fellow staff called Deva Nand and ii) leaving his guard without orders from his Superior Officer. The appellant was arrested for the incident of shooting another Rifleman in respect of registration of an FIR in Chiephobozou P.S. Case No.14 of 2015 under Section 307 IPC and placed under Police custody.

3. A Trial was conducted against him for the above offences and during Trial in the Assam Rifles Court, the Appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges. The prosecution examined 19 witnesses, including 3 eye witnesses and 23 exhibits were marked along with three material exhibits. After completion of the Trial, the Court found him guilty of charges and sentenced him to undergo 3 years of imprisonment in Civil Custody with an order of dismissal from service vide order dated 23.03.2018. The sentence of imprisonment and the order of dismissal were confirmed by the Inspector General, Assam Rifles (North) on 11.09.2018 by setting off the imprisonment of 3 years from the period spent by the Appellant in civil custody during investigation. Though the Appellant preferred an appeal on 16.03.2021 before the Director of Assam Rifles under Section 139(2) of Assam Rifles Act, 2006 r/w Rule 178 of Assam Rifles Rules, 2010 against the order dated 23.03.2018, it was rejected on 22.03.2022 on the ground of delay and devoid of merits.

4. Aggrieved by the order of rejection dated 22.03.2022, the Appellant thereafter approached this Court by way of filing W.P(C) No.220 of 2022, stating that the punishment imposed on him was shockingly disproportionate to the offence alleged; that the delay in preferring appeal occurred due to Covid-19; that there was a serious irregularity in conducting trial by the Court and that he is without employment after his dismissal from service.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Appellant, who was posted at 9 Assam Rifles on 21.05.2000 was found missing on 11.09.2015 along with his service weapon 5.56mm INSAS Rifle bearing Regn.No.16315656 between 12.30-13.00 hours from guard room and it was reported that the Appellant went to his barack and fired three rounds against one Deva Nand and caused injury in his right knee, right side of neck and lower abdomen. The said incident was immediately informed to the Civil Police on the same day, which had resulted in registration of an FIR No.14 of 2015 under Section 307 IPC. It was further contended that the Trial was conducted in accordance with the provisions of Assam Rifles Act and Rules and Summary of Evidence and Additional Summary of Evidence was carried out as per Rule 47, in which, the Appellant pleaded not guilty. After full-fledged trial, the Appellant was found guilty and sentenced to suffer three years Rigorous Imprisonment to be undergone in civil custody and to be dismissed from service. It was also contended that there was no violation of principles of natural justice and the trial was conducted after following due process of law. It was pointed out that since Assam Rifles is a Special Act, in terms of Section 5 of Cr.P.C., the provisions of Cr.P.C. are not applicable to any special law. It was strenuously argued that for the sake of argument, if the Appellant is reinstated into service, he may endanger the lives of other fellow Riflemen and cause injury. Thus, it was pleaded the order of the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference and the present Writ Appeal is liable to be