C/N 110 Gaising Rongmei Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the punishment imposed upon him by the respondent authorities vide order dated 29.10.2021, whereby the Disciplinary Authority, on the basis of the findings submitted by the Enquiry Officer in connection with Departmental Proceeding No. 01/2019 initiated against the petitioner, awarded the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. It is also mentioned in the said order that the departmental Proceedings and the order may be revived later as per Hon’ble Court’s order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that being aggrieved he had filed an appeal under Section 16 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 which came to be rejected on the ground of being time barred by order dated 17.02.2025 issued by the Appellate Authority.

¶22

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the order dated 29.10.2021 passed by the Disciplinary Authority it is mentioned that

¶23

Page No.# 3/6

¶24

the Disciplinary Proceedings and order may be revived as per the Hon’ble Court’s order. It is submitted that the petitioner has in the meantime been acquitted of the charges framed against him by order dated 18.11.2024 in P.R.C. No. 24/2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without considering the order passed on 18.11.2024 by the Trial Court, acquitting the writ petitioner from all the charges, the Appellate Authority by impugned order dated 17.02.2025 dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner on the grounds of being time barred.

¶25

Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate,

¶26

Assam for the respondents submits that there is no infirmity in the disciplinary proceedings undertaken and at this stage, no interference is warranted with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority.

¶27

Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the pleadings available on record have been carefully perused.

¶28

It is seen that pursuant to the order dated 29.10.2021, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of stoppage of 2 (two) increments with cumulative effect. The said order also clearly mentioned that the departmental proceedings and the order may be revived later as per the directions of the Hon’ble Court. Thereafter, the Trial Court in PRC No. 24/2022 by order dated

¶29

18.11.2024 delivered a judgment and order acquitting the petitioner of the

¶30

Page No.# 4/6

¶31

charges framed under Section 406 of the IPC. Subsequently, by way of an independent order dated 17.02.2025, the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner stood dismissed on the ground of limitation. From the recital of the order passed by the Appellate Authority, it is not clear whether the order passed by the Trial Court by order dated 18.11.2024 in PRC No.24/2022 as well as the liberty given by the Disciplinary Authority in the order imposing punishment on 29.10.2021 was taken into account and considered. Rules 17 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 provides for a limitation in filing appeal against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The appeal against any such order was required to be filed within a period of 3 (three) months from the date on which the appellant received copy of the order sought to be appealed against. The proviso to Rule 17 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, however, empowers the Appellate Authority to entertain an appeal beyond the period of limitation if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed time. The impugned order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority does not reflect as to whether this aspect in terms of the provisio to Rule 17 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 were considered. It appears to this Court that the Appellate Authority did not consider the applicability of the proviso to Rule 17 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964.

¶32

Page No.# 5/6

¶33

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the

¶34

ends of justice will be met if the impugned order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority is interfered with and the matter is remanded back to the authorities for a fresh consideration. It is, therefore, directed that the order dated 17.02.2025 passed by Assistant Inspector General of Police (AP), Assam, Ulubari, Guwahati, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the on the point of limitation is interfered with and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority will now re-decide the matter taking into consideration the grounds as may be urged by the Appellant before the Appellate Authority explaining the delay that had occurred in filing the appeal beyond the period of limitation. The Appellate Authority will also consider the order passed by the Trial Court in PRC No.24 of 2022 dated 18.11.2024 read with the liberty granted by the Disciplinary Authority in its order dated 29.10.2021. The Appellate Authority after hearing and upon consideration of such grounds as may be urged along with provision of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 and order passed by the Trial Court will reconsider the matter and pass appropriate order as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of 90 (ninety) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶35

With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No

Page No.# 6/6

order as to cost.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant

C/N 110 Gaising Rongmei v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/N 110 Gaising Rongmei v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradyut Baruah Vs Kavitha Padmanabhan and Anr.

MD Neyamat Ali Vs Keerthi Jalli, IAS

Saiful Islam Vs Keerthi Jalli, IAS

Pranab Kr. Das Vs Assam Co-Operative Apex Bank Ltd. and 20 Ors.

Papari Barman Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Papari Barman Vs Paban Kr Borthakur, I.A.S. and 3 Ors.