Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010165312024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4151/2024 KAJAL CHANDRA DAS S/O- LATE DOYAMOY CH. DAS, R/O - DAS COLONEY, NEAR KRISHNA KAUSHIK PLAZA, P.O. AND P.S.- SILCHAR, DISTRICT- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN -788005. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 7. 3:THE ADDITIONAL GENERAL OF POLICE (COMMUNICATION) ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI-7. 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CACHAR SILCHAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM. 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (COMMUNICATION) Page No.# 2/6 C/O THE IGP (COMMUNICATION)(APRO) ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 781007. 6:THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE (T) CACHAR SILCHAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR R P SHARMA, MS. K L R YANTHAN,MRS. R RONGMEI Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 12.02.2026 Heard Mrs. R Rongmei, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondents. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a constable (OPR) on 25.04.1984 under Assam Police. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of ASI of Police (Wireless). During the course of his employment, the petitioner fell sick on 28.07.2019 and he was shifted to Silchar for required treatment from 29.07.2019. He was subsequently declared medically fit to resume his duties with effect from 27.10.2020 along with medical certificates and medical papers Page No.# 3/6 and rendered his service till the date of his retirement on 31.08.2023. The petitioner submitted several representations before the Respondent No. 3 along with medical papers praying for sanction of his 457 days leave on medical ground and to pay his salary for the aforesaid leave period. However, despite the petitioner approaching the respondent authorities, no specific orders have been passed. 3. The respondents have contested the case of the petitioner by filing their affidavits stating that in spite of notices being issued, the petitioner did not turn up for attending his duties. He had the habit of borrowing money from local people. He also took loan from different banks by submitting false documents where the signature of the guarantors had been forged. The aforesaid actions were not befitting and therefore, a departmental proceeding was drawn up against him under Section 65 of the Assam Police Act, 2007, read with Rule 66 of the Assam Police Manual Part III and Article 311 of the Constitution of India, read with Rule 7 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. In the departmental proceeding, a show-cause notice was issued at his home address but he was found absent at his home and his whereabouts were not known. The petitioner was thereafter directed to submit his reply to the show- cause notice within 10 (ten) days and an advertisement to that effect was published in the Assam Tribune and Dainik Jugasankha in their issues dated 20- Page No.# 4/6 09-2019. However, no reply or any communication in respect of the show-cause notices was received. Thereafter, the respondents appointed an Enquiry Officer and also a Presenting Officer. The enquiry procedure was held ex parte as the petitioner in spite of notices being issued, did not participate in the enquiry. 4. The Enquiry Officer concluded the enquiry and the Disciplinary Authority upon considering the conclusions or findings of the Enquiry Officer, having regard to the evidence in the record, provisionally decided to award the petitioner with punishment withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect. Thereafter, a second show-cause notice was issued giving an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his reply against the proposed punishment or penalty. The second show-cause notice was also not replied to. Accordingly, the departmental proceeding was disposed of by the Departmental Authority awarding the punishment or withholding of two increments with cumulative effect vide the order dated 30.01.2020. The respondents also stated that the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent for a period of 457 days, which is in violation of the Rules. He was, therefore, granted 457 days leave without pay to regularize his period of absence from 29-07-2019 to 27-10-2020 by the DO No. 1135 dated 16-12-2020. Accordingly, his pay which was kept held over was thereby released. The petitioner thereafter joined his duties on 27-10-2020. It is also stated that after regularization of his period of absence of 457 days of leave Page No.# 5/6 without pay, his salary was regularly drawn from the month of December, 2020 and for the period 27-10-2020 to 30-11-2020. His salary was also drawn by the salary bill raised dated 11-01-2021. 5. In view of the claims raised by the petitioner that he was medically unfit, a Medical Board was constituted by the Joint Director of Health Services in Cachar, Sinchar, and upon due examination, it was found that although he suffered from conditions like Diabetes Mellitus, Hypertension, etc., for which he was under treatment from the local physician, there is no finding of the Medical Board that he suffered from psychiatric illness and therefore was found to be medically fit to attend his regular services. The respondents therefore did not grant medical leave on the same as because the petitioner was found to be medically fit and not suffering from any mental illness. 6. The petitioner has also filed a rejoinder affidavit reiterating the averments made by the respondent authorities in the affidavit-in-opposition. 7. The findings of the Medical Board that the petitioner was found to be medically fit to attend to his duties and did not suffer from medical illness is not under challenge. 8. Under such circumstances, this Court is not persuaded to accept the prayer of the petitioner that the representation filed has not been disposed of. Page No.# 6/6 In view of the specific finding by the Department imposing punishment pursuant to departmental proceedings initiated, which proceeded ex parte due to the petitioner’s non-participation in spite of notices issued, and which proceedings have not been challenged, and the findings of the Medical Board regarding the petitioner being found fit to attend to his duties, a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation will be of no effect. 9. Accordingly, this Court finds the writ petition to be devoid of merit and the same is therefore dismissed. No order as to cost. Dismissal of the writ petition, however, will not debar the petitioner to pursue his claims from the appropriate forum, if so advised. JUDGE Comparing Assistant