G/5021942Y Rifleman/Gd, Arun Sharma Vs the Union of India 3 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010076842020

¶3

2026:GAU-AS:8136

¶4

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/2289/2020

¶6

G/5021942Y RIFLEMAN/GD, ARUN SHARMA

¶7

S/O- LATE DEVRAJ SHARMA, VILL- PANTAL, P.O- JANDI, DIST- KATHUA, JAMMU AND KASHMIR, PIN- 184142 PRESENTLY SERVING AT 41 ST ASSAM RIFLES, C/O- 99 APO, PIN- 932041

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE UNION OF INDIA 3 ORS

¶10

REP. BY THE SECRETARY BY THE SECRETARY THE GOVT OF INDIA, MIN OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI- 110001

¶11

2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ASSAM RIFLES HEAD QUARTER MAHANIDESHALAYA ASSAM RIFLES SHILLONG MEGHALAYA- 11

¶12

3:THE COMMANDER 6 SECTOR ASSAM RIFLES HEAD QUARTER 6 SECTOR ASSAM RIFLES C/O- 99 APO

¶13

4:THE COMMANDANT 41ST ASSAM RIFLES C/O- 99 APO PIN- 93204

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. V KUMAR, MR. R THADANI,MR. B PATHAK

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., MR. K K PARASAR

¶16

Page No.# 2/5

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 10.06.2026

¶20

Heard Mr. B. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.

¶21

2 . By way of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails the order dated 04.05.2020 passed by the Commandant, 41st Assam Rifles, whereby he was awarded the punishment of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 60 days along with forfeiture of pay and allowances for 28 days on the allegation of absence from duty for a period of 210 days.

¶22

3 . The brief facts, as borne out from the record, are that the petitioner, serving as Rifleman/GD (General Duty) in the Assam Rifles and posted at 41^st Assam Rifles, C/O 99 APO at the relevant point of time, remained absent from duty beyond the sanctioned period of leave. Consequently, a Court of Inquiry/Code of Enquiry was convened. Upon conclusion of the proceedings, the petitioner was found guilty of overstaying leave by 210 days and was awarded the aforesaid punishment. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been instituted.

¶23

4 . It has been submitted at the Bar that out of the sentence of 60 days’ rigorous imprisonment, the petitioner had already undergone 36 days of force custody. Thereafter, pursuant to the interim protection granted by this Court while issuing notice in the present writ petition,

¶24

Page No.# 3/5

¶25

he was released from custody. Thus, only the remaining period of 24 days of imprisonment survives. It is further submitted that the monetary component of the punishment, namely forfeiture of pay and allowances for 28 days, has already been given effect to.

¶26

5 . Mr. B. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner had been suffering from medical and psychological issues, which led to the overstay of leave. It is further contended that the period of overstay had already been regularized by the authorities upon permitting the petitioner to rejoin duty and that the disciplinary proceedings in question were initiated nearly eighteen months thereafter. According to the learned counsel, the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct and, therefore, warrants interference by this Court. It is also submitted that although the petitioner initially declined to examine any witness in defence, he subsequently, on 22.04.2020, sought permission to examine his brother and brother-in-law in support of his case and requested time for producing them. However, such request was not acceded to despite the fact that, at the relevant point of time, movement was severely restricted owing to the nationwide lockdown.

¶27

6 . Per contra, Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that the proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with the prescribed procedure and that the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity to defend himself. It is further submitted that there was no material available before the disciplinary authority to establish that the petitioner was suffering from any mental trauma or medical condition of such nature

¶28

Page No.# 4/5

¶29

as would justify his prolonged absence from duty. Accordingly, it is contended that no interference is called for.

¶30

7 . Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, this Court finds that subsequent to his rejoining duty, the petitioner was examined at the Assam Rifles Composite Hospital. The medical document dated 26.05.2019 records that the petitioner was diagnosed with a brief depressive reaction and was prescribed medication therefor.

¶31

8 . Without entering into the merits of the disciplinary proceedings or the finding of guilt recorded therein, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner has already undergone 36 days of the sentence of imprisonment. It is also not in dispute that the forfeiture of pay and allowances directed under the impugned order has already been implemented.

¶32

9 . In the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly having regard to the nature of the misconduct, the period of punishment already undergone, and the medical records indicating that the petitioner may have been suffering from psychological distress during the relevant period, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be adequately met by setting aside the unserved portion of the sentence of imprisonment, namely 24 days.

¶33

10 . Accordingly, the impugned order dated 04.05.2020 is interfered with only to the limited extent indicated above. The remaining period of imprisonment of 24 days shall stand remitted.

¶34

11 . Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed to the aforesaid

¶35

Page No.# 5/5

¶36

extent and is disposed of.

¶37

12. It is, however, made clear that the findings recorded in the disciplinary proceedings and the determination of guilt are not being interfered with. The present interference is confined solely to the question of proportionality of punishment. In the peculiar facts of the case, particularly considering the petitioner’s medical history and the punishment already undergone by him, this Court is of the opinion that requiring the petitioner to undergo the remaining period of imprisonment would be unduly harsh and disproportionate. The sentence, to that extent, shocks the conscience of this Court and warrants modification in exercise of its power of judicial review.

¶38

Comparing Assistant

G/5021942Y Rifleman/Gd, Arun Sharma v. the Union of India 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G/5021942Y Rifleman/Gd, Arun Sharma v. the Union of India 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

Jai Prakash Sarma Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Momtaz Begum Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Pallab Borkakoty Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Dipon Narzary and 5 Ors. Vs the State of Asssam and 4 Ors.

Buto Urang @ But Urang Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Dipan Saikia and 22 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.