Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1094 (GAU)

Durga Prasad Bordoloi v. State of Assam

2016-12-07

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2016
JUDGMENT : AJIT SINGH, J. 1. The petitioner is Divisional Commandant, Home Guards and is presently under suspension. He has filed this writ petition praying for a direction for an enquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation to find the persons behind the alleged conspiracy against him in connivance with respondent no. 12 for falsely implicating him in criminal cases relating to misappropriation of fund meant for payment to the Home Guard Trainees and unearth the actual facts. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to register First Information Report against respondent no. 12 and others supported by Paban Hazarika for using fake certificates and to submit a list of pending cases against the officials who are facing criminal as well as departmental proceedings for a long period. 2. Respondent No. 12 filed a complaint against the petitioner in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tezpur which was later registered as Tezpur P.S. Case No. 1219/11 for offences under Sections 120(B), 409, 420, 468 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(1)(a)(c)/(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the complaint, Respondent No. 12 has alleged that the petitioner during the 42 days’ training programme for Rural Basic Home Guards Volunteer Training Course held at Tezpur in two different places, did not pay the trainees the prescribed allowance of Rs. 956/- per head and instead paid Rs. 600/- although on record the trainees were shown to have received Rs. 956/-. 3. Respondent No. 12 along with 9 others also filed WP (C) No. 2089/2011 praying inter-alia that their names should be included in the list of trainees who completed the said training and they be appointed accordingly in suitable posts. 4. The Director General of Civil Defence and Deputy Commandant General of Home Guard, Assam directed the petitioner to appear before the CID Department. And when petitioner appeared, he was first arrested and then suspended. The petitioner after being released on bail, contested WP (C) No. 2089/2011. The Government, however, did not support the petitioner and instead supported the case of the petitioners therein by filing affidavit. 5. It is to be noted that the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Assam also initiated enquiry against the petitioner. In the enquiry, the petitioner was directed to furnish details of his assets and liabilities till 18.2.2012. The Government, however, did not support the petitioner and instead supported the case of the petitioners therein by filing affidavit. 5. It is to be noted that the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Assam also initiated enquiry against the petitioner. In the enquiry, the petitioner was directed to furnish details of his assets and liabilities till 18.2.2012. Aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred WP (C) No. 6399/2013 before this High Court and in which respondents have been directed not to act upon the communication asking the petitioner to furnish details of his assets and liabilities. 6. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, HQ, CID has, however, submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner on 22.1.2015 in Case No. 4/15 for offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 474 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(1)(a)(C)/(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in the Court of Special Judge, Assam. It is in this background, the petitioner has filed the present petition on the ground that the same has been submitted hurriedly just to harass him. According to him, the names of the complainant and others were not found in the record to substantiate their claim that they were among the trainees who received the training and he could not take any decision independently and individually as names of the trainees were to be decided by the Selection Board constituted for that purpose. The petitioner has also stated that the certificates were issued subsequently by the Office Assistants and he has been falsely implicated. 7. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in their reply have stated that the petitioner deployed 497 Home Guards on election duty instead of 460 trainees and the names of 37 excess trainees were not found in the list of Selection Board. These respondents have also stated that the petitioner trained 140 persons in excess on his own without any authority and he issued certificates to them. According to these respondents, the petitioner was found to have illegally paid Rs. 600/- to the trainees and thus he indulged in illegal activities. 8. Respondent No. 5 has supported the stand taken by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and further pleaded that the petitioner prepared a list of 140 candidates by two separate orders in clear violation of the orders issued by the competent authority and deployed 37 Home Guard Volunteers on election duty in excess. 8. Respondent No. 5 has supported the stand taken by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and further pleaded that the petitioner prepared a list of 140 candidates by two separate orders in clear violation of the orders issued by the competent authority and deployed 37 Home Guard Volunteers on election duty in excess. According to respondent No. 5, on an enquiry conducted by Sri Jyoti Bora, the then District Commandant, Home Guards, Sonitpur, it was revealed that the petitioners of WP (C) No. 2089/2011 were in fact trained by the petitioner and certificates were also issued to them and, as such, the present petitioner had cheated them. 9. The Superintendent of Police, CID, although not impleaded as respondent, has filed an affidavit supporting the allegations levelled against the petitioner stating therein that FSL reports confirmed the similarity of the signatures of the petitioner appearing on the certificates and those of his admitted ones and, as such, the charge-sheet submitted by the agency is based on correct facts. 10. Upon careful scrutiny of the pleadings, it is crystal clear that no fundamental right of the petitioner has been infringed by the action of the authorities. The allegations levelled against the petitioner have been duly enquired into by the competent authorities and the matter is sub judice. Besides, the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner is yet to be disposed of where he has alleged that the authorities have tried to harass him by asking him to divulge his assets and liabilities. 11. In the fact situation of the case, we find no good ground to direct for an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The allegations levelled against the petitioner have been duly investigated and charge-sheet has already been filed. 12. The writ petition is wholly misconceived. It is accordingly dismissed.