Non-Supply Of Findings And Opinion Of The Court Of Inquiry Would Vitiate An Order Awarding Punishment: Manipur High Court

Justice M.V. Muralidaran allowed a writ petition, which assailed the censure order imposed by the officers of the Assam Rifles for making false allegations against officers and violating the existing channels of correspondence for addressing grievances.

Factual Background

The petitioner, who joined the services of Assam Rifles as a clerk was eventually promoted to the rank of Deputy Commandant. A selection process for deployment in the UN Mission at Haiti was conducted by Assam Rifles HQ DGAR (Military Secretary Branch) and the petitioner made it to the reserved list. As one of the selected officers's deployment was cancelled, according to the norms and conditions the petitioner was supposed to be upgraded. However, without doing so fresh applications were called for. The petitioner submitted a complaint against some officers alleging corrupt practices in the selection process. A Staff Court of Inquiry (CoI) took up the complaint and based on its proceedings the Assam Rifles issued a show-cause notice for making baseless allegations and for violating the existing channel of correspondence for addressing grievances. The petitioner submitted his response on 15.11.2016. Eventually, an order was passed against the petitioner, imposing a penalty of severe displeasure, censuring the petitioner from any kind of promotion including deployment of the UN Mission at Haiti ("censure order").

Contentions raised by the petitioner

Senior Advocate, Mr. H.S. Paonam appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the proceeding before the CoI was biased. He averred that the officer against whom complaint was made by the petitioner was close friends with the Presiding Officer as well as the members of CoI. It was further pointed out that because the officers of Assam Rifles did not take action, the petitioner was constrained to approach the Home Secretary and Chief of Army Staff with allegations of corruption. Mr. Paonam emphasised that the findings and opinion of the CoI, which paved way for the censure order, was not disclosed to the petitioner, denying him effective representation.

Contentions raised by the respondents

Central Government Counsel, Mr. Salam Samarjeet appearing on behalf of the respondents, argued that the censure order was passed after due compliance. Placing reliance on Union of India and others v. R.K.Sharma (2001) 9 SCC 592 and State of Meghalaya and others v. Mecken Singh N.Marak (2008) 7 SCC 580, it was pointed out that the scope for judicial review against the sentence awarded by the CoI was limited. He urged that the response of the petitioner to the show cause notice was considered by the authority, but as it was unsatisfactory the concerned authority thought it fit to issue the censure order. Therefore, there is no question of arbitrariness and bias.

Decision of the High Court

The Court noted that though the scope of interference was limited, it has the jurisdiction to consider a challenge to the quantum of punishment if there are sufficient reasons. However, it clarified that the issue under consideration was whether the censure order was vitiated on the ground of non-supply of findings and opinion of the CoI and whether the CoI was biased in arriving at its conclusion. The Court took note of the fact that in response to the two applications of the petitioner seeking the copy of the CoI, the concerned authority had provided a copy without the findings and opinion, even when Rule 187 of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010 stated that it was permissible to supply the opinion of the CoI.

"It is the bounden duty of the authority concerned to furnish the findings and opinion of the Court of Inquiry before awarding punishment, if any to the delinquent so as to enable the delinquent to make a representation. The petitioner has been denied in perusing the findings and opinion of the Court of Inquiry."

Therefore, the Court held that the censure order was vitiated on the ground of non-supply of the decision arrived by the CoI for imposing penalty. Moreover, the Court observed that the officer against whom the petitioner had lodged the complaint was close friends with the Presiding Officer and members of the CoI and thus, respondents had failed to establish that the proceedings were not biased. Considering that the petitioner was already placed in the reserved list in the selection process for the UN Mission, the Court asked the authorities to consider his candidature.

Case Name: Shri Om Dutta Sharma v. Union of India And Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Man) 1

Case No. and Date: W.P. (C) No. 138 of 2018 | 19 Jan 2022

Corum: Justice M.V. Muralidaran

Counsel for the Petitioner: Senior Advocate, Mr. H.S. Paonam and Advocate, Mr. N. Bipin.

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. S. Samarjeet, CGC

Click Here To Read/ Download Judgment