Judgment T. Nandakumar Singh, J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the impugned order dated 14.09.2009 passed by the respondent No. 5 Commandant 35th Assam Rifles C/o 99 APO for dismissing the petitioner from service. 2. Heard Mr. R. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.C. Shyam, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. At the very outset of the hearing, Mr. R. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the erstwhile Gauhati High Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.N.K. Singh and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. Baruah) dated 29.08.2011 passed in WA No. (SH)33/2011 wherein and where-under, the Division Bench of the erstwhile Gauhati High Court upheld the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.07.2011 passed in WP(C) No. (SH)148/2010 that the Commandant of the Assam Rifles is not the competent authority under Section 11(2) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 for dismissing the service of the Rifleman as well as Havildar of the Assam Rifles and this Court also in the judgment and order of the Division Bench dated 30.07.2014 passed in WA No. 45/2014, is of the same view that the Commandant of the Assam Rifles is not the competent authority under Section 11 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 for dismissing the service of the Rifleman and Havildar. 4. The fact leading to the filing of the present writ petition, sufficient for deciding the matter in issue, as to whether the present writ petition is squarely covered by the earlier judgments and orders of this Court as well as the erstwhile Gauhati High Court, is briefly noted. 5. The petitioner joined the Assam Rifles on 31.12.1992 as Rifleman Clerk and after completion of the training, he was posted to various units. On considering the hard work and meritorious services of the petitioner, he was promoted to the post of Havildar Clerk in June, 2011. When the petitioner was posted at 35th Assam Rifle under the command of the respondent No. 5, he had taken 15 days causal leave w.e.f. 01.09.2004 to 17.09.2004 because of personal reason. Later on, the petitioner also had been called on 04.08.2009 and directed to sign one prepared paper by the Commanding Officer. When the petitioner was posted at 35th Assam Rifle under the command of the respondent No. 5, he had taken 15 days causal leave w.e.f. 01.09.2004 to 17.09.2004 because of personal reason. Later on, the petitioner also had been called on 04.08.2009 and directed to sign one prepared paper by the Commanding Officer. On 14.09.2009, the petitioner was called by the Commanding officer and handed over a copy of charge sheet. The petitioner had been put under suspension by invoking the provisions of the Assam Rifles Act, 1941 on 04.08.2009. After, the summary court martial proceedings for the charge leveled against the petitioner, by the impugned order dated 14.09.2009 issued by the respondent No. 5, the petitioner had been dismissed from service. The main ground for assailing the dismissal order dated 14.09.2009 in the present writ petition is that the respondent No. 5 is not the competent authority for issuing the impugned order for dismissal from service under Section 11 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that under the provisions of the Assam Rifles Act, 1941, the personnel of the Assam Rifles were subjected to the Army Act, 1950, with regard to penal sections vide Notification No. SRO 318 dated 06.12.1962. The relevant portions of the said SRO 318 dated 06.12.1962 (Annexure-III to the writ petition) is quoted hereunder:- "Copy of Government of India, Ministry of Defence Gazette Notification No. SRO 318 dated 6th Dec 62 as amended up-to-date. The relevant portions of the said SRO 318 dated 06.12.1962 (Annexure-III to the writ petition) is quoted hereunder:- "Copy of Government of India, Ministry of Defence Gazette Notification No. SRO 318 dated 6th Dec 62 as amended up-to-date. "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (II) of Section 4 of the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1959) and in suppression of the notification of the Government of India, in the late External Affairs Department No. 93-X dated 25th Jun 42, as subsequently amended, the Central Government hereby:- (i) applies to every units of the Assam Rifles, being a force raised and maintained in India under the auth the central Government, all the provisions of the said Act, except those specified in part 'A' of the schedule annexed hereto, subject to the modifications set forth in part 'B' of that schedule, when attached to or acting with any body of the regular army, and (ii) suspends, while notification remain inforce, the operation of sections 6, 7, 8 & 9 of the Assam Rifles Act, 1941 (5 of 1941) SCHEDULE PART A Exceptions Sections 10 to 17, 22 to 24, 43 and 44 Army Act PART B Modifications In Section 3- (a) for clause (v) the following clause shall be substituted, namely, (v) "Commanding Officer" when used in any provision of this Act means the officer in actual command of any separate portion of the Assam Rifles." 7. On bare perusal of the said SRO 318 dated 06.12.1962, it is crystal clear that under the said SRO 318 dated 06.12.1962, the personnel of the Assam Rifles are subjected to the penal provisions of the Army Act, 1950. The Ministry of Defence also issued SRO No. 117 dated 28.03.1960 as to the applicability of the Army Act, 1950 to the Assam Rifles personnel and modification of the Assam Rifles Act, 1941 during the period they remain attached to the Army Regimental Centres or other Army units for training. The said SRO 117 dated 28.03.1960 reads as follows:- "NOTIFICATIONS AND WARRANTS ISSUED UNDER THE ARMY ACT, 1950 No. VI. APPLICATION OF THE ACT TO ASSAM RIFLES (a) (Ministry of Defence Notification No. S.R.O. 117 dated 28th March 1960) S.R.O. 117. The said SRO 117 dated 28.03.1960 reads as follows:- "NOTIFICATIONS AND WARRANTS ISSUED UNDER THE ARMY ACT, 1950 No. VI. APPLICATION OF THE ACT TO ASSAM RIFLES (a) (Ministry of Defence Notification No. S.R.O. 117 dated 28th March 1960) S.R.O. 117. - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), the Central Government hereby applies all the provisions of the said Act to the personnel of the Training detachments of the Assam Rifles, being a force raised and maintained in India under the authority of the Central Government, during the period they remain attached to Army Regimental Centres or other Army units for training. PART B Modifications In section 3- (a) For clause (v) the following clause shall be substituted, namely- (v) "Commanding Officer" when used in any provision of the Act means the officer in actual command of any separate portion of the Assam Rifles, (b) in clause (xii) after the words "or the Territorial Army", the words "or a Subedar-Major, Subedar, Jemadar or Transport Jemadar of the Assam Rifles" shall be inserted; (c) in clause (xv), after the words "or the Territorial Army", the words "or a Havildar-Major, Havildar, Dafadar, Nalband, Naik or Lance Naik of the Assam Rifles" shall be inserted; (cc) in clause (xviii), after sub-clause (d), the following shall be added, namely- "(e) an officer of the Assam Rifles with the designation of the Inspector General, Deputy Inspector General, Commandant, Deputy or Assistant Commandant." (d) In clause (xxiii), the following words shall be added at the end, namely- "and when used in relation to a person belonging to the Assam Rifles, includes any person superior in command to him in the Assam Rifles." In Section 113, the words "each of whom has held a commission for not less than three whole years and" shall be "omitted." In Section 114, the words "each of whom has held a commission for not less than two whole years" shall be omitted". 8. 8. The Assam Rifles Act, 2006 (47 of 2006) was enacted by the Parliament to consolidate and amend the law relating to the governance of the Assam Rifles, an Armed Force of the Union for ensuring the security of the borders of India, to carry out counter insurgency operations in the specified areas and to act in aid of civil authorities for the maintenance of the law and order and for matters connected therewith. The Central Govt. in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 (47 of 2006) hereby appoints the 20th day of February, 2009, as the date on which the provisions of the said Act shall come into force vide Notification of the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi dated 20.02.2009, which reads as follows:- "MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 20th February, 2009. S.O.517 (E) - In exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 (47 of 2006), the Central govt. hereby appoints the 20th day of February, 2009 as the date on which the provision of the said Act shall come into force. (F. No. L-11011/1/2007 Pers-III) BARUN KUMAR SAHU, Director (personnel)." The said Notification was also published in the Gazette of India No. 325 New Delhi February 20th, 2009. 9. It is clear that the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 (47 of 2006) came into force w.e.f. 20.02.2009 and also the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 (47 of 2006) are applicable to the Assam Rifles personnel. In other words, the personnel of the Assam Rifles are controlled by the provisions of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 (47 of 2006). Section 11 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, clearly provides that the authority who could remove or dismiss the service of the personnel of the Assam Rifles. For easy reference, Section 11 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 is quoted hereunder:- "11. Dismissal, removal or reduction by Director-General and by other officers.- (1) The Director-General, Additional Director-General or any Inspector-General may dismiss or remove from service or reduce to a lower grade or rank or the ranks any person subject to this Act other than on officer. For easy reference, Section 11 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 is quoted hereunder:- "11. Dismissal, removal or reduction by Director-General and by other officers.- (1) The Director-General, Additional Director-General or any Inspector-General may dismiss or remove from service or reduce to a lower grade or rank or the ranks any person subject to this Act other than on officer. (2) An officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector-General may dismiss or remove from the service any person under his command other than an officer or a subordinate officer of such rank or the ranks as may be prescribed. (3) Any such officer as is mentioned in sub-section (2) may reduce to a lower grade or rank or the ranks any person under his command except an officer or a subordinate officer. (4) The exercise of any power under this section shall be subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules and regulations." 10. It is nobody's dispute that the impugned order dated 14.09.2009 for dismissing the service of the petitioner (Havildar Clerk of the Assam Rifles) was issued/passed by the respondent No. 5 i.e. the 35th Commandant HQ Assam Rifles C/o 99 APO. The Division Bench of the erstwhile Gauhati High Court incidentally consisting of myself and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. Baruah had passed the judgment and order dated 29.08.2011 passed in WA No. (SH)33/2011 upholding the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge Dated 20.07.2011 passed in WP(C)No. (SH)148/2010 with the clear finding that the Commanding Officer is not the competent authority under Section 11(2) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 for dismissing the service of the petitioner. The judgment and order of the erstwhile Gauhati High Court (Division Bench) dated 29.08.2011 passed in WA No. (SH)33/2010 is quoted hereunder:- "29.08.2011 (T.N.K. Singh, J.) Heard Mr. S.C. Shyam, learned counsel for the appellants-respondents in the writ petition. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.07.2011 allowing Writ Petition (C) No. (SH) 148 of 2010 filed by the respondent-writ petitioner, assailing the order dated 09.02.2010 issued by the Commanding Officer for dismissing the writ petitioner from service for the simple reason that under section 11(2) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 the Deputy Inspector General is the competent authority for dismissing Rifleman (General Duty). The only ground for filing the present writ appeal is that if the relief sought for by the respondent-writ petitioner in WP(C) No. (SH) 148/2010 is allowed on the ground that the Commandant is not the competent authority for dismissing Rifleman, a flood gate will be opened inasmuch as many Riflemen had been dismissed from service by the Commandant. We have also perused Section 11(2) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 and it is clear that the Deputy Inspector General is the competent authority for dismissing the Riflemen (General Duty). Such being the situation, we are of firm view that dismissal order dated 09.02.2010 issued by the Commandant is illegal inasmuch as he is not competent authority for issuing dismissal order of the Riflemen (General Duty), and the Deputy Inspector General is competent authority. It is fairly well settled that door of justice cannot be closed to the citizens only on the ground that relief sought for, if granted will open the flood gate. Regarding this point, reference may be made to the decisions of the Apex Court in (1) Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee & Anr Vs C.K. Rajan & Ors. (2003) 7 SCC 546 (2) Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr Vs Union of India & Ors. (2005) 4 SCC 649 and (3) Coal India Ltd. & Ors Vs Saroj Kumar Mishra (2007) 9 SCC 625 . For the foregoing reasons we are in complete agreement with the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.07.2011 allowing WP(C) No. (SH) 148 of 2010 for setting aside the dismissal order dated 09.02.2010 issued by the incompetent authority i.e. Commandant. Accordingly, this writ appeal is devoid of merit and dismissed. Mr. Shyam, learned CGC appearing for the appellants prays for extending time for compliance with the directions mentioned in the impugned judgment and order dated 20.07.2011. Taking into consideration of the prayer and also the peculiar circumstances of this case, further two months' time is granted for complying direction of this court (learned Single Judge) in the judgment and order dated 20.07.2011 from today." 11. This Court (Division Bench Hon'ble Mr. justice T.N.K. Singh and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R. Sen) vide the judgment and order dated 30.07.2014 passed in WA No. 45/2014 and another Division Bench (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uma Nath Singh, Chief Justice (Acting) and Hon'ble Mr. This Court (Division Bench Hon'ble Mr. justice T.N.K. Singh and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R. Sen) vide the judgment and order dated 30.07.2014 passed in WA No. 45/2014 and another Division Bench (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uma Nath Singh, Chief Justice (Acting) and Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.N.K. Singh) vide order dated 03.09.2014 passed in WA No. 27/2013 are of the same view that the Commanding Officer of the Assam Rifles is not the competent authority for dismissing the service of the Rifleman and Havildar under Section 11(2) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 (47 of 2006). The Judgment and order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 03.09.2014 passed in WA No. 27/2014 reads as follows:- "(U.N. Singh, CJ (Acting)) 03.09.2014 Heard learned counsel appearing for parties and perused the record of writ appeals. 2. This order shall also dispose of similar Writ Appeal No. 51/2013 listed today. One and only question that needs to be addressed has already been concluded vide a Judgment dated 29.08.2011 passed by Division Bench headed by one of us (T.N.K. Singh, J.) in WA No. (SH)33/2011, wherein it has been held that the discharge order in terms of Section 11(2) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 (for short 'the Act of 2006') has to be passed by a Deputy Inspector General of Assam Rifles and not by a Commandant. For easy reference, Section 11 of the said Act of 2006 is reproduced herein below:- "11. Dismissal, removal or reduction by Director-General and by other officers.- (1) The Director-General, Additional Director-General or any Inspector-General may dismiss or remove from service or reduce to a lower grade or rank or the ranks any person subject to this Act other than on officer. (2) An officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector-General may dismiss or remove from the service any person under his command other than an officer or a subordinate officer of such rank or the ranks as may be prescribed. (3) Any such officer as is mentioned in sub-section (2) may reduce to a lower grade or rank or the ranks any person under his command except an officer or a subordinate officer. (4) The exercise of any power under this section shall be subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules and regulations." 3. (3) Any such officer as is mentioned in sub-section (2) may reduce to a lower grade or rank or the ranks any person under his command except an officer or a subordinate officer. (4) The exercise of any power under this section shall be subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules and regulations." 3. In the judgment/order passed by Division Bench as referred to herein above in Writ Appeal No. (SH)33/2011, the issue has been discussed in the light of various judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court which may now need no further elucidation. The judgment dated 29.08.2011 passed in WA No. (SH)33/2011 is also reproduced for ready reference as under:- "29.08.2011 (T.N.K. Singh, J.) Heard Mr. S.C. Shyam, learned counsel for the appellants-respondents in the writ petition. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.07.2011 allowing Writ Petition (C) No. (SH) 148 of 2010 filed by the respondent-writ petitioner, assailing the order dated 09.02.2010 issued by the Commanding Officer for dismissing the writ petitioner from service for the simple reason that under section 11(2) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 the Deputy Inspector General is the competent authority for dismissing Rifleman (General Duty). The only ground for filing the present writ appeal is that if the relief sought for by the respondent-writ petitioner in WP(C) No. (SH) 148/2010 is allowed on the ground that the Commandant is not the competent authority for dismissing Rifleman, a flood gate will be opened inasmuch as many Riflemen had been dismissed from service by the Commandant. We have also perused Section 11(2) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 and it is clear that the Deputy Inspector General is the competent authority for dismissing the Riflemen (General Duty). Such being the situation, we are of firm view that dismissal order dated 09.02.2010 issued by the Commandant is illegal inasmuch as he is not competent authority for issuing dismissal order of the Riflemen (General Duty), and the Deputy Inspector General is competent authority. It is fairly well settled that door of justice cannot be closed to the citizens only on the ground that relief sought for, if granted will open the flood gate. It is fairly well settled that door of justice cannot be closed to the citizens only on the ground that relief sought for, if granted will open the flood gate. Regarding this point, reference may be made to the decisions of the Apex Court in (1) Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee & Anr Vs C.K. Rajan & Ors (2003) 7 SCC 546 (2) Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr Vs Union of India & Ors (2005) 4 SCC 649 and (3) Coal India Ltd. & Ors Vs Saroj Kumar Mishra (2007) 9 SCC 625 . For the foregoing reasons we are in complete agreement with the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.07.2011 allowing WP(C) No. (SH) 148 of 2010 for setting aside the dismissal order dated 09.02.2010 issued by the incompetent authority i.e. Commandant. Accordingly, this writ appeal is devoid of merit and dismissed. Mr. Shyam, learned CGC appearing for the appellants prays for extending time for compliance with the directions mentioned in the impugned judgment and order dated 20.07.2011. Taking into consideration of the prayer and also the peculiar circumstances of this case, further two months' time is granted for complying direction of this court (learned Single Judge) in the judgment and order dated 20.07.2011 from today." 4. Moreover, the above judgment/order dated 29.08.2011, has also been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide the order of dismissal dated 06.02.2012 passed in Special Leave Petition No. 2164 of 2012 filed by appellants-Union of India against the order dated 29.08.2011 of Division Bench as referred to herein above. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for appellants-Union of India, has no valid case to advance. Thus, these appeals are dismissed and disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 29.08.2011. 12. The appeal i.e. CC 2164/2012 filed by the respondents against the said judgment and order of the Division Bench of the erstwhile Gauhati High Court dated 29.08.2011 which is quoted above in extenso to the Apex Court i.e. Supreme Court of India had been dismissed vide order dated 06.02.2012. 13. From the above factual matrix, it is clear that the respondents particularly the respondent No. 5 the Commanding Officer is not the competent authority under Section 11(2) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 to dismiss the Rifleman and Havildar from their services. 13. From the above factual matrix, it is clear that the respondents particularly the respondent No. 5 the Commanding Officer is not the competent authority under Section 11(2) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 to dismiss the Rifleman and Havildar from their services. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that an exemplary cost is required to be imposed so that the respondents may not continue to commit the illegalities. Mr. S.C. Shyam, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that instead of imposing cost to the respondents, some strictures may be made. However, this Court is of the considered view that stricture is more dangerous than imposing cost of small amount. Accordingly, a cost of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only is imposed to the respondent No. 5. The said cost of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only is to be deposited in the Registry of this Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order and the Registry in its turn shall deposit the same to the fund of the High Court Bar Association, Shillong. 14. In the result, the impugned order dated 14.09.2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service within 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order. However, it is left to the wisdom of the respondents to take appropriate decision against the petitioner after reinstatement. 15. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.