Lachit Borah Alias Lachit Bora Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/10

¶2

GAHC010209362025

¶3

2026:GAU-AS:3762

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/5431/2025

¶6

LACHIT BORAH ALIAS LACHIT BORA

¶7

FORESTER-I, TAMULPUR RANGE HEAD QUARTER, BAKSA FOREST DIVISION, MUSHALPUR, S/O- LATE KAMALA KANTA BORAH, R/O- VILL.PUB JANGALPARA, P.O. BARJALAH, P.S. TANGLA, DIST. UDALGURI (BTR), ASSAM, PIN- 784521.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

¶10

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.

¶11

2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND HEAD OF FOREST FORCE ASSAM GUWAHATI-37.

¶12

3:THE ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST CHD BTC KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN- 783370.

¶13

4:THE SECRETARY (FOREST) BTC KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN- 783370.

¶14

Page No.# 2/10

¶15

5:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER DHANSIRI FOREST DIVISION UDALGURI (BTC) ASSAM PIN- 784509

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K DEKA, R BORAH,MR. P DAIMARY,MR. R. KARIM,MS. N M LONGKENG,J MEDHI

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, BTC,SC, FOREST

¶18

BEFORE

¶19

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶20

ORDER

¶21

13/03/2026

¶22

Heard Mr. P K Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D Gogoi, learned Standing counsel, Forest Department appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. B C Musahary, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5.

¶23

2. The petitioner in the present proceeding has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to open the sealed cover, wherein, the recommendation made by the Departmental Promotion Committee for his promotion to the rank of Deputy Ranger is kept and to promote the petitioner to the rank of Deputy Ranger, w.e.f. the date his juniors were so promoted, in pursuance to the same selection process, vide order dated 29.08.2023.

¶24

3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner on his selection had joined as Forester Grade-I w.e.f. 11.12.1992. The petitioner, while working in such capacity at Tamulpur Range Headquarter, Baksa Forest Division, Mushalpur, came to be placed under arrest in connection with ACB P.S. Case No. 02/2023 registered under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. As a consequence of the petitioner being placed under arrest and having been detained for more than 48 hours, the petitioner came to be placed under suspension vide an order dated 04.02.2023, issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Dhansiri Division Udalguri.

¶25

Page No.# 3/10

¶26

The petitioner moved before this Court by way of instituting a Bail Application, being Bail Appln. No. 622/2023, praying for enlarging him on bail in connection with the said criminal case instituted against him.

¶27

This Court vide order dated 24.02.2023 passed in the said bail application proceeded to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with the said criminal case.

¶28

The petitioner also assailed the prolonged suspension occasioning in his case after being put under suspension vide order dated 04.02.2023 by way of instituting a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 3289/2023.

¶29

This Court vide order dated 21.06.2023, considering the prolonged period of suspension occasioning in respect of the petitioner, herein, was pleased to direct for reinstatement of the petitioner in his service.

¶30

The said developments taking place, the respondent authorities had vide issuance of a show cause notice dated 04.08.2023, proceeded to institute a departmental proceeding against the petitioner.

¶31

During the pendency of the said departmental proceeding instituted against the petitioner, a Departmental Promotion Committee meeting was convened to consider the case of eligible incumbents in the rank of Forester Grade-I for promotion to the vacant posts available in the cadre of Deputy Ranger. In the list of eligible forester Grade-I as placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee, the name of the petitioner figured at Sl. No. 173.

¶32

The Departmental Promotion Committee, on noticing that a departmental proceeding was already instituted against the petitioner and the same was not concluded, proceeded to keep the recommendation made in respect of the petitioner for the purpose of the said promotion in sealed cover until finalization of the said departmental proceedings. The recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee on being accepted by the competent authority, the recommended candidates came to be promoted to the next higher grade of Deputy Ranger vide issuance of an order dated 29.08.2023. Persons junior to the

¶33

Page No.# 4/10

¶34

petitioner were also so promoted.

¶35

The departmental proceeding instituted against the petitioner was proceeded with by the respondent authorities and on conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer having submitted his report and the petitioner also having submitted his representation, thereto, the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner vide order dated 05.09.2024 proceeded to consider the same and on such consideration, the petitioner was acquitted from the charges framed against him and the departmental proceeding instituted against him also came to be dropped. Further, the period of suspension undergone by the petitioner was also directed to be treated as on duty. However, the Disciplinary Authority recorded an adverse remark in the said order to the effect that the petitioner is given a chance to rectify his character and the petitioner was warned not to repeat any such illegal activity in the department again. The departmental proceeding having been closed against the petitioner and he not being found blameworthy, therein, the petitioner had approached the respondent authorities praying for his promotion to the rank of Deputy Ranger by opening the seal cover, wherein, the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee in his respect was so kept.

¶36

The same not having materialized, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 5638/2024, raising the said grievance. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.03.2025 was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition with a direction to the respondent authorities to dispose of the representation preferred by the petitioner in the matter.

¶37

It is projected by the petitioner that the representation was not disposed of, however, a draft Gradation List of Forester Grade-I, as on 01.06.2025 was circulated and therein, against the name of the petitioner, it was recorded that his case for promotion was kept under sealed cover.

¶38

It is in the above background that the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition.

¶39

4. Mr. P K Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner, after reiterating the facts, noticed hereinabove, has submitted that the petitioner, not being found blameworthy in the

¶40

Page No.# 5/10

¶41

departmental proceedings instituted against him and he having been acquitted of the charges so framed against him, the bar that was existing with regard to his promotion to the rank of Deputy Ranger ceased to operate and the recommendation so made in respect of the petitioner by the constituted Departmental Promotion Committee kept in sealed cover, was required to be opened and basing thereon, the case of the petitioner was mandated to be considered for promotion to the rank of Deputy Ranger.

¶42

4.1 Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his such submissions, has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. V. Jankiraman Vs. Union of India and Others, reported in AIR 1991 SC 2010.

¶43

4.2 Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the order dated 05.09.2024, more specifically, to the observations made therein, by the Disciplinary Authority has submitted that the said observation, although, would at a glance seem to be an adverse comment, actually, the same was in the form of an advisory only. He submits that the said comment as made by the Disciplinary Authority in the order dated 05.09.2024 cannot be construed to be a bar for promoting the petitioner to the cadre of Deputy Ranger, in terms of the recommendation made in his case by the constituted Departmental Promotion Committee.

¶44

4.3 Mr. Deka, has further submitted that the criminal proceeding as instituted against the petitioner is still pending at the preliminary enquiry stage and accordingly, in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.V. Jankiraman (supra), the same also cannot be construed to be a bar for the purpose of effecting promotion in respect of the petitioner, herein, in terms of the consideration extended to him by the Departmental Promotion Committee for his promotion to the cadre of Deputy Ranger.

¶45

4.4 In the above premises, Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court would be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to open the sealed cover, wherein, the recommendation in respect of the petitioner is so kept by the Departmental Promotion Committee in pursuance to consideration of his case in the meeting of the said committee held on 07.08.2023 for promotion to the rank of Deputy Ranger. Mr. Deka submits

¶46

Page No.# 6/10

¶47

that as his juniors also having been promoted from the same selection process vide order dated 29.08.2023, the petitioner would also now be mandated to be so promoted with effect from the date his juniors were so promoted in pursuance to issuance of the order dated 29.08.2023.

¶48

5. Per contra, Mr. D Gogoi, learned Standing counsel, Forest Department has submitted that considering the nature of the allegations existing against the petitioner, a criminal proceeding being pending against him, this Court, at this stage, would be pleased not to direct the respondent authorities to open the sealed cover, wherein, the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee in respect of the petitioner for his promotion to the cadre of Deputy Ranger is presently kept. He submits that such a process would be mandated to be carried out only after the petitioner is exonerated in the criminal proceedings instituted against him.

¶49

5.1 Mr. Gogoi, learned Standing counsel, Forest Department has fairly submitted that the petitioner in the departmental proceeding instituted against him was not found blameworthy by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority had agreed with such finding of the Enquiry Officer. He submits that the petitioner was acquitted by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 05.09.2024 from the charges framed against him.

¶50

5.2 Mr. Gogoi, learned Standing counsel, Forest Department, by referring to the affidavit filed by the respondent authorities in the earlier round of litigation, i.e., in the proceedings of WP(C) No. 5638/2024 submits that the remark as recorded by the disciplinary authority in the order dated 05.09.2024, after acquitting him from the charges framed against him, was only in the nature of an advisory and the intention was not to tarnish the reputation of the petitioner, but was by way of a caution not to resort to any possible wrong doing in future. He further submits that the said observation in no way undermines the discharge of the petitioner from the charges leveled against him by the Disciplinary Authority.

¶51

6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

¶52

7. The facts, as noticed hereinabove, are not in dispute.

¶53

Page No.# 7/10

¶54

8. It is also not in dispute that the criminal proceeding instituted against the petitioner is presently pending only in its preliminary enquiry stage. The petitioner was subjected to a departmental proceeding vide issuance of a show cause notice dated 04.08.2023 and the same had concluded with the issuance of an order by the Disciplinary Authority dated 05.09.2024, wherein, the petitioner was discharged of the charges framed against him and the disciplinary proceeding instituted against him came to be dropped. The operative portion of the order dated 05.09.2024, being relevant is extracted hereinbelow:

¶55

“Findings: The Inquiry Officer opined that Sri Lachit Bora, Forester-l, the delinquent is not guilty as he went to his duty and conducted patrolling duty with his team of forest staff on the instruction of Sri Raju Kumar Brahma, AFS, DFO, Dhansiri Division, Udalguri, on 30/01/2023. And on that very day, two nos. of tractors/vehicles loaded with sand and gravel without proper Govt. Challan were being seized and Rs. 28,200.00 (twenty eight thousand two hundred) only being the Govt. Royalty, monopoly, fine etc, imposed on the Tractor/vehicle owner. Later on, the aforesaid amount was realised from the owner of Tractor/vehicle and deposited through Challan vide No. 81531, dt. 31/01/2023 and No.81532, dt. 31/01/2023. However, having realised the Govt., royalty, etc. he had asked for a bribe which is lilegal and that is why he got arrested and later on he was released on bail from the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court.

¶56

"ORDER"

¶57

After going through all records upon causes being shown in the reports furnished by various agencies and considering all aspects, I hereby order that Sri Lachit Bora, Forester-I is acquitted from the aforesaid case, however, he is given a chance to rectify his character and warned strongly not to repeat any such illegal activity in the Deptt. again.

¶58

Accordingly, (i) The case in respect of Sri Lachit Bora, Forester-I is hereby dropped.

¶59

(ii) The period of suspension is treated as on duty for all purposes.”

¶60

9. A perusal of the operative portion of the order dated 05.09.2024 would reveal that the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner was not guilty of the charges framed against him was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and it is on the basis of such conclusion drawn by the Disciplinary Authority that the petitioner was acquitted from the

¶61

Page No.# 8/10

¶62

charge so framed against him vide show cause notice dated 04.08.2023. However, upon acquitting the petitioner, it is found that certain remarks came to be made against the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority in the said order.

¶63

10. This Court has again perused the said remarks so made and is of the considered view that the same in no way undermines the discharge of the petitioner from the departmental proceedings instituted against him and the said remarks were only in the nature of an advisory and cannot be deemed to be so issued as a measure of penalty.

¶64

11. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court finds that the cloud which was hovering over the petitioner during the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding instituted against him stood removed with the passing of the order dated 05.09.2024. The petitioner not being found blameworthy in the departmental proceeding instituted against him, he was entitled for promotion to the next higher rank of Deputy Ranger, provided the Departmental Promotion Committee had found him fit for the purpose.

¶65

12. During the pendency of the departmental proceeding against the petitioner, the constituted Departmental Promotion Committee had met on 07.08.2023, for considering the cases of the eligible Foresters Grade-I in the zone of consideration for promotion to the next higher rank of Deputy Ranger. The petitioner was in the zone of consideration and in the list of Foresters Grade-I placed for consideration before the Departmental Promotion Committee, the name of the petitioner figured at Sl. No. 103.

¶66

13. It is to be noted that the petitioner also belongs to the Schedule Tribes (Plains) Community. The Departmental Promotion Committee considering the pendency of a departmental proceeding against the petitioner, had after considering his case, kept the recommendation made in his favour in sealed cover.

¶67

14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision in the case of K. V. Jankiraman (supra) had held that the recommendation made by the Departmental Promotion Committee shall continue to remain under sealed cover till the departmental proceeding instituted against the delinquent employee is concluded and the delinquent employee is exonerated from the charges framed against him.

¶68

Page No.# 9/10

¶69

15. In the case in hand, the petitioner having been not found to be blameworthy in the departmental proceeding instituted against him, the respondent authorities upon conclusion of the departmental proceedings instituted against the petitioner with the passing of the order dated 05.09.2024, were required to open the sealed cover, wherein, the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee in respect of the petitioner for promotion to the rank of Deputy Ranger was so kept and consider his case for such promotion basing on the recommendations so made.

¶70

16. Further, the investigation in the criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioner having not concluded and a charge-sheet not having been filed in the matter, till date, said proceedings also could not have acted as a bar for the respondent authorities in proceeding to open the said sealed cover.

¶71

17. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that in the present case, there exist no bar after the passing of the order dated 05.09.2024, restraining the respondent authorities from opening the sealed cover, wherein, the recommendation rendered by the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 07.08.2023 with regard to the suitability of the petitioner for promotion to the rank of Deputy Ranger is so kept.

¶72

18. In view of the above conclusion reached by this Court, this Court passes the following directions:

¶73

18.1 The respondent authorities shall open the sealed cover, wherein, the recommendation made by the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 07.08.2023 with regard to the suitability of the petitioner for promotion to the rank of Deputy Ranger, is so kept.

¶74

18.2 On opening of the said sealed cover, if it is found that the petitioner has been recommended for such promotion by the constituted Departmental Promotion Committee, the respondent authorities shall issue orders promoting the petitioner to the rank of Deputy Ranger with retrospective effect, i.e., w.e.f. the date, juniors to the petitioner in the rank of Forester Grade-I, were so promoted in pursuance to the order dated 29.08.2023.

¶75

Page No.# 10/10

¶76

18.3 The petitioner now being directed to be promoted to the rank of Deputy Ranger with retrospective effect, in the event, he was found to be suitable by the Departmental Promotion Committee, this Court, considering the factual matrix involved in the matter, is of the considered view that while the petitioner would be now required to be so promoted with retrospective effect, i.e., w.e.f. the date his juniors were so promoted in pursuance to the order dated 29.08.2023 with consequential seniority and the pay of the petitioner shall also be required to be fixed with effect from the date such retrospective effect has been given to his promotion, the arrears of pay due to the petitioner be released to the petitioner only, w.e.f. 06.09.2024, i.e., a date after the passing of the order dated 05.09.2024 by the Disciplinary Authority.

¶77

18.4 The exercise that would now be mandated to be carried out for compliance of the directions passed, hereinabove, shall be initiated and concluded by the respondent authorities, within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶78

19. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶79

JUDGE

¶80

Comparing Assistant

Lachit Borah Alias Lachit Bora v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lachit Borah Alias Lachit Bora v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Anowar Hussain Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Ratnawali Devi Vs the State of Assam

Bhaskar Boro Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Sri Amrit Chandra Das Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Kamaleswar Roy Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Aminul Hoque Laskar Vs the Union of India and 8 Ors.