d , e , g and h of the above companypilation.
J. JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR NEW DELHI J. JULY 22, 2015.
In response to the show cause numberice dated 27.08.2008, which was issued to the respondent after the fourth Red Ink entry was recorded on 26.08.2008, the respondent submitted a reply acknowledging the entire factual position depicted in the show cause numberice.
The instant special leave petition was filed by the Union of India and others, so as to assail the order passed by the Division Bench on 2.11.2011.
Leave granted.
The respondent assailed all the adverse orders passed against him, by filing Writ Petition No.
It is therefore, that an order of discharge dated 7.2.2009 was passed.
In the above order of discharge, it was mentioned, that the action had been taken against the respondent, inter alia, under Clause 5 of ROI 1/2004, as it had been companycluded, that he was an incorrigible offender.
The respondent then preferred Writ Appeal No.
while on road opening party duty.
The last of the above punishments, depicted at serial number h , was imposed on the respondent, on account of the fact, that he was again found in an intoxicated state on 11.08.2008 at 1700 hrs.,
The third punishment at serial number g was imposed on the respondent, on account of his having overstayed leave, granted to him, for a period of eighteen days.
he was found in an intoxication state.
It was the companytention of the learned companynsel for the respondent, that as companypared to the delinquency alleged against the afore stated Jose Nedum Joseph, the charges levelled against the respondent were only, that of having been found intoxicated while on duty on three occasions, and absent from duty without leave on one occasion.
The aforesaid representation was rejected by an order dated 8.5.2009.
The aforesaid show cause numberice relied upon certain provisions of the Assam Rifles Act, 1941, besides the Assam Rifles Manual, and also Clause 5 of the Record of Office Instructions 1/2004 hereinafter referred to as the ROI 1/2004 .
Insofar as the punishment at serial number e is companycerned, it was pointed out, that the respondent was again found in an intoxicating state, while on platoon training duty at Diphu on 07.10.2007 at 2045 hrs.
The details of the disciplinary action taken against the respondent has been depicted in a companypilation, which is a part of the record of the case, and is being extracted hereunder NO.
The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 22.4.2010.
He claims to have discharged his duties to the absolute satisfaction of his superiors, and earned promotions to higher ranks till 2007, when he came to hold the rank of Havaldar.
OFFENCE DATE OF OFFENCESTATEMENT OF PUNISHMENT OFFENCE AWARDED AA Sec 39 b 14 Nov 99 Without sufficient 10 days pay cause of fine on 30 Nov overstaying leave 99 granted to him AR Act 1941 Sec27 Mar 05 Intoxication 7 days 9 An act forfeiture od prejudicial to pay on 28 Mar good order and 05 discipline AA Sec 48 24 May 07 Intoxication 14 days pay fine on 01 Jun 07 AA Sec 48 23 Jul 07 Intoxication Severe reprimand and 14 days pay fine on 23 Jul 07 AA Sec 48 07 Oct 07 Intoxication Severe reprimand on 15 Oct 07 AA Sec 48 10 Oct 07 Intoxication 14 days pay fine on 16 Oct 07 AA Sec 39 b 06 Feb 08 Without sufficient Severe cause of reprimand on overstaying leave 01 Mar 08 granted to him AA Sec 48 11 Aug 08 Intoxication Severe reprimand on 26 Aug 08 AA Sec 39 c 29 Dec 08 Absenting himself Severe and AA Sec 48 without leave and reprimand on intoxication 06 Jan 09 It is relevant to mention, that the four Red Ink entries taken into companysideration, insofar as the show cause numberice dated 27.08.2008 is companycerned, are depicted at serial number.
Whilst holding the rank of Havaldar, he was issued a show cause numberice dated 27.08.2008 informing him, that he had earned four Red Ink entries, and asking him why he should number be discharged from service.
In the show cause numberice, the respondent was intimated, that he had earned nine punishments which included five Red Ink entries and four Black Ink entries.
Despite having so companycluded, he was held entitled to pension and gratuity, as were admissible under the rules.
167 SH of 2009 before the Gauhati High Court.
Dissatisfied with the order of discharge, the respondent addressed a representation dated 20.04.2009 to the Director General, Assam Rifles.
SH 54 of 2010, which was allowed by an order dated 2.11.2011.
d , e , g and h , have also been expressed in the pleadings.
Additionally, the aforesaid Jose Nedum Joseph was also accused of insubordination.
In addition to the factual position, indicated hereinabove, learned companynsel for the appellants highlights the fact, that after the first three Red Ink entries were recorded against the respondent, a numberice dated 2.3.2008 was issued to him, informing the respondent, that he had already been issued three Red Ink entries, and that he was liable to be discharged from service, in case one further Red Ink entry is recorded.
Insofar as the punishment at serial number d is companycerned, the same came to be imposed on the respondent on account of the fact that on 23.07.2007, while he was on motor vehicle check post duty at 1950 hrs.,
The details of the cause action, why the above punishments were inflicted on the respondent at serial number.
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. The respondent was inducted into the service of the Assam Rifles as a Rifleman on 25.11.1991.
