Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 156 (GAU)

Govind Kumar Balmiki v. State of Nagaland

2022-02-18

DEVASHIS BARUAH

body2022
JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Temjen, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. V. Zhimomi, learned Government Advocate on behalf of the Respondent nos. 1 to 4. 2. The case of the Petitioner in brief is that the Petitioner was appointed as Constable C/N. No. 35109 on 15.12.2000 under the establishment of 3rd NAP Battalion, Tuensang, Nagaland. Thereafter, the Petitioner on 18.12.2002 was transferred on deputation to enable him to report to the Commandant, Special NAP Battalion, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. The Petitioner, subsequent thereto, again was deputed to Kohima, Nagaland, in the year 2003 and was posted to be attached as the House-Guard of the Director General of Police (DGP), Nagaland. It is the contention of the Petitioner that some time in the early part of the year 2011, the Petitioner was requested and entrusted to search one domestic help for which the Petitioner went to Tuensang district in search for the same. While going there, the Petitioner happened to sit together in a bus with a non-local lady and on some misunderstanding the father of the lady and her uncle thought that the Petitioner was having an affair with the lady and warned the Petitioner of dire consequences for which the Petitioner fled from Tuensang to his native place for safety and admittedly, did not join his post. 3. The Petitioner’s further case is after a lapse of three years, the Petitioner thought of pursuing his service benefits and approached the Respondent Authorities but he was informed that he was not entitled to any benefits for which the Petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005. To the said application of the Petitioner, a reply was sent by the Respondent no. 4 on 22.12.2020, wherein, it was mentioned that the Respondent Authorities, after serving various notices and show-cause notice, dismissed the service of the Petitioner. To the said documents which were furnished under the RTI Act, a document was also furnished which was an Order dated 22.12.2020 wherein it was mentioned that the Petitioner was dismissed from service w.e.f. the date of his willful desertion i.e. 16.04.2011 and it was also mentioned that all sums due to the Petitioner shall stand forfeited to the Government of Nagaland. The Petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the instant Writ Petition challenging the Order dated 31.01.2012 and for consideration of the Petitioner’s service benefits and other entitlement/pensionary benefits. 4. It is relevant herein to mention that the instant Writ Petition was filed on 01.02.2021. The Petitioner had also filed an Additional Affidavit whereby the photocopy of the Subscription GPF Ledger was brought on record and a perusal thereof would show an account balance of Rs. 67856/- (Sixty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Six). 5. The Respondents have not filed their Affidavit in spite of receipt of notice on 03.02.2021 itself. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the Respondents and given my anxious consideration to the matter. The facts narrated hereinabove and more particularly a perusal of Annexure-III (Series) clearly shows that on account of willful absenteeism from duty w.e.f. 16.04.2011, the Petitioner was imposed with the penalty of dismissal. It, however, shows that the Order of dismissal was passed was on 31.01.2012 and only on 04.11.2020, the Petitioner woke up for the first time and filed the RTI. The record reveals that since 2011, the Petitioner has not joined his duty and after a long period of nine years the Petitioner has approached for redressal of his grievances praying inter-alia for reinstatement and for setting aside the order of termination. 7. The facts narrated would show gross laches on the part of the Petitioner in challenging the Order dated 31.01.2012. Moreover, a perusal of Annexure-III (Series) would show that the Respondent Authorities had given various opportunities to the Petitioner to join his services and thereupon when the Petitioner did not join his services, the Respondent Authorities had issued the termination order on 31.01.2012. The record further shows that only on 04.11.2020, the Petitioner initiated steps to know about his job which clearly shows that the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as regards reinstatement under Article 226 of the Constitution on account of laches for which this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order dated 31.01.2012 in so far as the question of termination of the services of the Petitioner is concerned. 8. 8. However, taking into account that the Petitioner’s entitlement as regards the GPF amount, it is the opinion of this Court that, the said amount belongs to the Petitioner and as such the said amount is liable to be paid to the Petitioner. Further, to that, if as per the provisions of the applicable Service Rules, if the Petitioner is entitled to any benefits, the Petitioner ought to be granted such benefits, if permissible under the applicable Service Rules. 9. Accordingly, this Court while not interfering with the Order of dismissal/termination from the service vide the Order dated 31.01.2012, but interferes with the said Order in so far as the last line of the said Order “All sums due to him shall be forfeited to the Government of Nagaland” and thereby direct the Respondent Authorities to make payment to the Petitioner, his entitlement of GPF amount which is stated to be Rs. 67856/- (to which the learned counsel for the Respondent upon instruction submits that the said amount is not denied) and all such other amounts/benefits to which the Petitioner is otherwise entitled to upon termination of his service as per the applicable Service Rules. 10. The said exercise should be done within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this Order is served upon Respondent no. 3. 11. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.