Page No.# 1/12 GAHC010013972018 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/508/2018 BIJIT KUMAR RAY VILL- GAURIPUR, WARD NO.1, P.O. GAURIPUR, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME AFFAIRS, DISPUR, GHY-6 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ULUBARI GHY-9 3:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ULUBARI GHY-9 4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (A.P) ASSAM ULUBARI GHY-9 5:THE COMMANDANT 8TH ASSAM POLICE BATTALION ABHAYAPURI P.O. ABHAYAPURI DIST- BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN-78338 Page No.# 2/12 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M CHANDA, MR S CHOUDHURY,MR. H DAS Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 19.12.2025 Heard Mr. M Chanda, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. TC Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the State respondents. 2. The petitioner was appointed in the 8th Assam Police Battalion, Abhayapuri as a Constable on 31-03-2001. Since March 2011, he has been working as a Computer Operator in the Computer Branch. The Government of Assam, Home (A) Department, by the letter dated 05-03-2014, sanctioned and released an amount of Rs. 2,29,67,728/- for disbursement of a arrear salary/dearness allowances (in short DA), to the force personnel of 8th Assam Police Battalion of Abhayapuri. 3. The petitioner, along with seven others, by orders dated 26-03-2014, issued by the Commandant, 8th Assam Police Battalion of Abhayapuri, was entrusted to prepare the DA arrear bill, with effect from 01-01-1998 to 31-05- 2001 and 01-07-2002 to 31-05-2005, which was sanctioned by the order dated Page No.# 3/12 05-03-2014. In the said order it was also mentioned that the bill will be prepared under the supervision of the Head Assistant, Shri Rasaraj Bhattacharjee. The said disbursement was with respect to 2064 numbers of personnel of the 8th Assam Police Battalion of Abhayapuri. Some of the personnel had already retired/expired/transferred by then, and their account numbers had either become inoperative or incorrect or defective. It is the claim of the petitioner that in view of that in consultation with Head Assistant, Shri Rasaraj Bhattacharjee, acting as a supervisor, and ABSI Ashyut Kalita took a decision at about 11.30 p.m. on 31-03-2014 that the name and account numbers of some of the trustworthy personnel of the battalion and some of their relatives and friends would be utilised and substituted in good faith for the inoperative or incorrect/defective account numbers of those retired/expired/transferred personnel as a stop-gap arrangement to save the sanctioned amount from getting lapsed for non-utilisation of the same, on or before 31-3-2014. It was also decided that the amounts of transfer would be deposited in the accounts of the actual beneficiaries after correct ascertainment of their names and account numbers. Accordingly, the petitioner provided the names and account numbers of himself, his wife, Smt. Tanusri Roy, his sister Miss Malavika Roy and his sisters-in-law Smt. Anamika Roy and Smt. Sangita Roy, as provided by other similarly situated personnel under the instructions of Page No.# 4/12 ABSI Ashyut Kalita. Subsequently, the petitioner along with the seven others, by order dated 28-04-2014, were placed under suspension with effect from 28-04- 2014 on allegations of gross misconduct in disbursement of Arrear/ DA of the 8th Assam Police Battalion of Abhayapuri for the aforesaid period. 4. Subsequently, a show-cause notice dated 08-08-2014 was issued calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why appropriate action should not be initiated against him for the acts which tantamount to misconduct/negligence of duty. He was called upon to submit his written statements within a period of 10 (ten) days. The show-cause was enclosed by a list of documents as well as statement of allegation. The petitioner, in response to the show-cause, submitted his written statements of defence on 22-08-2014. The enquiry was thereafter conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report confirming the charges against the petitioner as well as the other persons against whom the common enquiry was instituted. 5. Upon receipt of the show-cause notice, the petitioner was served with a copy of the enquiry report as well as a show-cause to enable the petitioner to file his representation, if any, before the disciplinary authority. According to the petitioner, the show-cause notice dated 19-09-2015 allowed seven days' time to the petitioner to submit his reply. According to the petitioner, he received the Page No.# 5/12 show-cause only on 22-09-2015 and before he could submit his reply by the impugned order dated 27-09-2015 the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order removing the petitioner from service. 6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority prescribed. The Appellate Authority also rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner by the order dated 24-12-2015 upholding the order of dismissal by the Disciplinary Authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for reasons best known to the Department, there is a clear discrimination in respect of the petitioner. In respect of most of the persons similarly situated like the petitioner against whom show-cause notice was issued and proceedings were initiated, their orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority stood modified by the Appellate Authority and they were accordingly still in service. In so far as ABSI Ashyut Kalita is concerned his case was rejected and as a consequence he had approached his Court by filing WP(C) No. 3522 of 2019 which came to be disposed of by judgement and order dated 13-04-2021 and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by the said judgement and order modified the quantum and nature of punishment to that of compulsory retirement with full pension benefits. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the Page No.# 6/12 petitioner being similarly situated, he is also entitled to be conferred with the benefit of similar orders as there is no basis for depriving the petitioner of similar orders modifying the punishment of removal from service by the disciplinary authority. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that from the pleadings it is clear that whatever the petitioner was asked to do by the superior officers, he was compelled to do the same and there is no mala fide intention and the Supervisor Rasaraj Bhattacharjee although it was under his instructions that the entire episode was undertaken by the petitioner and the other personnel, and in spite of clear deposition by PW-8 during the enquiry which implicated Rasaraj Bhattacharjee, no action was taken against him. In so far as Senior Assistant Suresh Chandra Ray is concerned, he was suspended but subsequently reinstated. ABSI Mayezuddin Mondal although was dismissed from service by the Disciplinary Authority, subsequently the appellate authority by the order dated 30.12.2015 reinstated him in service and ordered for stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect. 8. Havildar/Clark Ashok Kumar Borah who was also dismissed from service but the appellate authority held that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate and accordingly, he was he was set aside and he was reinstated with stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect. Cook Pradeep Kalita, who was initially under suspension, was subsequently Page No.# 7/12 reinstated. 9. Havildar/Clark Sankardev Sutradhar was initially placed under suspension but subsequently reinstated. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that the petitioner being similarly situated, his punishment is harsh and he ought to be granted the similar benefit by the Appellate Authority and which having not been done he is compelled to approach this Court. 11. It is further submitted that ABSI Ashyut Kalita had earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 3522 of 2019 which came to be disposed of by judgement and order dated 13-04-2021 by modifying the order of punishment earlier imposed to that of compulsory retirement with full pension benefits. 12. The respondent no.5, who is the Commandant of the 8th Assam Police Battalion, Abhayapuri has filed an affidavit disputing the claims of the petitioner and the other personnel. Learned counsel for the respondent no.5 submits that although the allegations against the petitioner and the other personnel arose from a singular episode, however, the proceedings were initiated against each of these delinquent employees and the conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer in respect of each of these delinquent officers are also based on independent finding and assessment of the Enquiry Officer on the evidence Page No.# 8/12 which were adduced before the enquiry and the same was also upheld by the Appellate Authority upon due examination on the records. 13. It is, therefore, submitted that no interference is called for in the case of the writ petitioner. It is also submitted that parity of punishment is to be judged on several factors including the roles and responsibilities assigned to each of these personnel. 14. As per the enquiry report, the petitioner was one of the employees responsible for commission of this irregularity and therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Appellate Authority. 15. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the judgments placed into service have been carefully noted. 16. Although a challenge is made to the proceedings itself, however, in view of the judgement and order dated 13-04-2021 passed in WP(C) No. 3522 of 2019, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his prayer in the present written petition is for a similar order as is passed in WP(C) No. 3522 of 2019 and that the punishment imposed on him be suitably modified. 17. It is necessary to refer to the status of the other delinquent employees against whom the similar proceedings were drawn upon by the Department and which punishments as per the petitioner came to be subsequently modified. For Page No.# 9/12 easy reference the cases of other delinquents are given in the table from here below: SL No. Name of incumbent with designation Amount alleged to be misappropriated Fate of DP Present status 1 Mr. Moyezuddin Mondal, Assam Battalion Sub-Inspector (ABSI) Rs.82,13,200/- Removed from service By order dated 31.12.2015 Appellate Authority reinstated in service. 2. Ashok Kumar Borah, Hav/Clk Rs.83,888/- Removed from service By order dated 31.12.2015 Appellate Authority reinstated in service 3. Rasaraj Bhattacharjee Head Assistant Rs.2,76,055/- Severely reprimanded for his misconduct By order dated 17.07.2018 given all service benefits as he retired on 30.03.2016 during Departmental proceeding 4. Suresh Ray, Senior Assistant Rs.3,67,680/- Given compulsory retirement By order dated 07.04.2018 given pensionary benefits 5 Sankardev Sutradhar H/C/K Rs.78,02,100/- Pending By order dated 08.10.2016 reinstated in service pending the DP 6 Pradip Kalita Cook Rs45,56,100/- Pending By order dated 08.10.2016 reinstated in service pending the DP Page No.# 10/12 7. Ashyut Kalita Rs.3,15,370/- Removal from service This Court by order dated 13.04.2021 Modified removal from service to compulsory retirement with full pension benefits 18. From the above charges, it is seen that the personnel at Serial No. 1 & 2 were initially removed from service but the Appellate Authority by its order reinstated the personnel into service. The employee at serial no.3 who was the Supervisor and under whose supervision the entire incident was referred to be carried out was serially remanded by the Disciplinary Authority and during the departmental proceedings as he has superannuated by order dated 17.07.2018 all his service benefits were released. The personnel at Serial No.4 although was given compulsory retirement by order dated 07.04.2018, he was also conferred the pensionary benefits. The personnel at Serial No. 5 & 6 against whom departmental proceedings were pending and they were under suspension have subsequently been reinstated into the service and the personnel at Serial No. 7 ABSI Ashyut Kalita, he was dismissed from service and which was upheld by the Appellate Authority. However, vide judgment and order dated 13-04-2021 passed in WP(C) No. 3522 of 2019 the punishment was modified to that of compulsory retirement with full pensionary benefits. Page No.# 11/12 19. In support of petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments : (i) Directorate General of Police and others vs. G Dasayan reported in (1998) 2 SCC 407. (ii) Rajendra Yadav vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in (2013) 3 SCC 73. 20. From a careful perusal of the judgments what can be culled out is the principle of law that where a delinquent employee is found guilty of an offence or a misconduct, he is to be awarded with the same punishment as has been awarded to the other delinquent employees against whom similar disciplinary proceedings were initiated and concluded. From the extract of the punishments imposed in respect of the other delinquent employees, it is seen that persons similarly situated like the petitioner, the punishments were modified by the Appellate Authority. In the case of ABSI Ashyut Kalita, a Coordinate Bench upon examining all the aspects had also altered and modified the punishment imposed to that of compulsory retirement with full pensionary benefits vide judgment and order dated 13-04-2021 passed in WP(C) No. 3522 of 2019. 21. Upon having carefully examining the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the judgment and order dated 13-04-2021 passed in WP(C) No. 3522 of Page No.# 12/12 2019, this Court is also persuaded to adopt similar view and accordingly, allows the writ petition in part. While the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner are not interfered with, however, the punishment imposed on the writ petitioner being punishment of removal from service of the writ petitioner by order dated 27.09.2015 issued by the Commandant, 8th Assam Police Battalion, Abhayapuri, stands modified to that of compulsory retirement with full pensionary benefits. 22. Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of in terms of the above. No order as to the cost. Records, if any, are returned back to the State Counsel by the Court Master. JUDGE Comparing Assistant