Agartala: The Tripura High Court has set aside the dismissal of a retired Assam Rifles Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) who was accused in a corruption case, ruling that the force acted arbitrarily by abandoning disciplinary proceedings before a General Assam Rifles Court (GARC) and unlawfully invoking Rule 20(2) of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010 to terminate his service.
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), holding that the Assam Rifles had wrongly concluded that the disciplinary proceedings were barred by limitation. The court pronounced its judgment on August 3, following hearings completed on July 13.
The case originated from a 2014 sting operation allegedly carried out by contractor C.C. Mathew in association with tehelka.com and telecast by a Malayalam television channel. The operation allegedly showed 14 Assam Rifles personnel accepting or agreeing to accept illegal gratification. Limbu was accused of receiving Rs 5,000 from the contractor to facilitate the clearance of bills.
Following the allegations, a Court of Inquiry was ordered in September 2014. A tentative charge sheet was issued in February 2015, followed by a final charge sheet in June 2017, after a General Assam Rifles Court was convened.
However, the proceedings were repeatedly delayed due to litigation. The GARC trial was stayed by the Tripura High Court in 2017, with the stay continuing during subsequent appellate proceedings. On June 26, 2020, the Assam Rifles cancelled the GARC convening order, citing the prolonged suspension of the trial.
In June 2021, the force issued a show-cause notice proposing Limbu’s dismissal under Section 11 of the Assam Rifles Act read with Rule 20 of the Assam Rifles Rules. It argued that continuing the GARC proceedings had become “inexpedient and impracticable” because the trial was allegedly barred by limitation. Limbu was dismissed from service on October 18, 2021, and his departmental appeal was subsequently rejected.
The High Court found that the Assam Rifles had incorrectly interpreted Section 98 of the Assam Rifles Act, which prescribes the limitation period only for the commencement of a General Assam Rifles Court trial and not for its completion.
The Bench observed that once a trial has validly commenced, the law does not impose any deadline for concluding it. It further noted that periods during which proceedings remained stayed by judicial orders must be excluded while calculating limitation. The judges also referred to the Supreme Court’s directions extending limitation periods during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Rejecting the force’s justification for cancelling the GARC proceedings, the court held that the reliance on limitation was legally untenable since the statute contains no time limit for completing a trial that had already begun.
The court also ruled that the conditions required for invoking Rule 20(2), which permits dismissal without completing a Force Court trial when such proceedings become genuinely inexpedient or impracticable, were not satisfied in this case. According to the Bench, neither the statutory provisions nor the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic justified dispensing with the disciplinary trial.
Citing the Supreme Court‘s judgment in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, the Bench reiterated that disciplinary authorities cannot bypass a regular inquiry arbitrarily or merely to avoid conducting it.
The court further found that the disciplinary proceedings violated the principles of natural justice. It noted that contractor C.C. Mathew, the principal witness in the case, never appeared before either the Court of Inquiry or the General Assam Rifles Court despite security arrangements and directions issued by the Delhi High Court. Instead, Limbu was only supplied with the witness’s written statement and permitted to submit questions through a written questionnaire, effectively denying him the opportunity to cross-examine the key witness.
In a strongly worded observation, the Bench held that the reasons cited by the Assam Rifles for abandoning the prescribed disciplinary process were arbitrary, lacking in bona fides and appeared to have been adopted because the prosecution’s case had weakened owing to the non-cooperation of the principal witness.
Allowing the appeal, the High Court quashed the June 15, 2021 show-cause notice, the October 18, 2021 dismissal order, and the March 9, 2022 appellate order.
Since Limbu has already retired on attaining the age of superannuation, the court said reconvening a General Assam Rifles Court was no longer feasible. It directed the Assam Rifles to pay him full salary for the suspension period, after adjusting the subsistence allowance already paid, release all retiral benefits without linking them to the disciplinary proceedings, pay 6% annual interest on delayed dues from the date they became payable until actual payment, and reimburse Rs 15,000 towards litigation costs. The court directed that all payments be made within three months.