Tripura HC sets aside dismissal of Assam Rifles ex-subedar, orders retiral benefits

The Tripura High Court has set aside the dismissal of an Assam Rifles ex-subedar from service, holding that the force authorities had wrongly abandoned disciplinary proceedings before a General Assam Rifles Court (GARC) and resorted to an alternative procedure under the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit allowed the writ appeal filed by Shibu Limbu, a former Subedar (B&R), against the judgment of a single judge dismissing his writ petition.

The Bench held that the authorities had wrongly concluded that a trial before the General Assam Rifles Court had become "inexpedient" and "impracticable" on the ground of limitation under Section 98 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, and therefore could not invoke Rule 20(2) of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010 to terminate his service.

The case arose from allegations that Limbu accepted illegal gratification from a contractor in August 2014. Following a Court of Inquiry, a tentative charge sheet was issued in 2015 and a General Assam Rifles Court was convened in 2017. However, the proceedings were interrupted by multiple rounds of litigation and were subsequently cancelled by the Assam Rifles on June 26, 2020, citing the prolonged pendency of the proceedings.

Thereafter, the authorities issued a show-cause notice under Rule 20(2) of the Assam Rifles Rules, stating that a trial by the General Assam Rifles Court had become time-barred and proposing his dismissal from service. He was dismissed on October 18, 2021, and his departmental appeal was rejected in March 2022.

Examining Section 98 of the Assam Rifles Act, the High Court held that the provision prescribes only the limitation period for commencing a trial before a General Assam Rifles Court and not for concluding one. 

The court also referred to the Supreme Court's orders extending limitation during the COVID-19 pandemic and held that the authorities could not rely on the pandemic or limitation as grounds to abandon the General Assam Rifles Court proceedings.

The court further found that the appellant had been denied an opportunity to cross-examine the key witness, contractor C.C. Mathew, who had declined to appear before the Court of Inquiry despite security arrangements. Instead, the appellant was asked to cross-examine the witness through a written questionnaire, which the Bench held was not permissible under the applicable rules and amounted to a violation of the principles of natural justice.

Holding that the authorities' decision to abandon the General Assam Rifles Court proceedings and invoke Rule 20(2) was arbitrary and unsustainable, the Division Bench quashed the show-cause notice issued on June 15, 2021, the dismissal order dated October 18, 2021, and the appellate order dated March 9, 2022.

Since Limbu has already attained the age of superannuation, the court said there was no possibility of directing a fresh General Assam Rifles Court. It directed the respondents to pay him full wages for the suspension period, after adjusting the subsistence allowance already paid, along with all retiral benefits without reference to the disciplinary proceedings. The court also awarded interest at six per cent per annum on the dues from the date they became payable until payment, besides costs of Rs 15,000. The payments have been directed to be made within three months.