Discharge Without Completion Of Training In Assam Rifles , No Right For Reinstatement : Gauhati HC

Background Facts

A recruitment exam was conducted for the post of Constable (General Duty) in the Assam Rifles by the Staff Selection Commission. The appellant qualified in the exam and received a provisional appointment order. Later, he was issued an appointment letter after clearing the final stage of selection and a medical examination.

He was directed to report at the Assam Rifles Training Centre for training. Later a discharge certificate was issued to him at his own request after undergoing training for about 12 months and 16 days. Then a formal discharge order was passed under the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010. It discharged him from service on his own request.

Then the appellant made several representations seeking reinstatement. It was claimed that he had been compelled to sign discharge papers under the impression that he was applying for medical leave. However, his claim for reinstatement was formally rejected.

Aggrieved by the rejection, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court. The Single Judge dismissed the petition. It was held that the appellant had not completed his training and was not formally enrolled as a member of the Assam Rifles force under the Assam Rifles Act, 2006. It was also observed that the appellant had voluntarily signed the discharge application and affidavit before a notary public.

Challenging this decision, the appellant filed the intra-court appeal before the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court.

It was contended by the appellant that the affidavit sworn before a notary public was never served upon him and was produced for the first time in affidavit-in-opposition of respondents. It was further submitted that the appellant had sustained an injury to his palm during the training period and had sought permission to return to his native village for treatment. He was under the bona fide belief that he was proceeding on medical leave.

It was argued that the appellant was an uneducated and ignorant person, therefore, he was compelled by the authorities to sign pre-executed documents without being informed of their contents. He was assured that these were mere formalities for granting medical leave. The appellant signed on some non-judicial stamp papers believing the authorities that it was formality for granting medical leave.

On the other hand, it was argued by the respondents that the appellant was not a member of the Assam Rifles force at the time of his discharge because he had not completed his training. Further the appellant had voluntarily signed the discharge application. He was also interviewed by the battalion authorities and his Commanding Officer, who told him about the disadvantages of proceeding with discharge at that stage.

It was further submitted that the appellant had written the discharge application in his own handwriting and had also executed an affidavit before a notary public. The respondents argued that the appellant did not apply for withdrawal of his resignation within the time limit of 90 days, therefore his resignation had become final.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the court that the appointment letter stated that if the appellant failed to successfully complete the recruitment training within the stipulated period, his service was liable to be terminated without any notice and without assigning any reason. Therefore, the appellant was aware that unless he completed and concluded his training successfully, he would not be absorbed as a member of the force of Assam Rifles.

It was further observed that if a person becomes a member of the force of Assam Rifles as per the provisions of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 then no member of the force is at liberty to resign his appointment during the term of his engagement or to withdraw himself from all or any of the duties of his appointment except with the previous permission in writing of the prescribed authority.

With respect to the notarized affidavit, it was found by the Division Bench that the appellant's signature appeared in the centre of the page with writings both above and below it, therefore, it was impossible that the signature had been taken on a blank stamp paper and the affidavit was printed later. Hence, it was held that there was a presumption that the appellant had knowledge of the contents of the affidavit which he had signed because he had not lodged any protest immediately.

It was held by the Division Bench that the appellant was not absorbed in the Assam Rifles on successful completion of training. Therefore he was not a member of the Assam Rifles Force so the issue of reinstatement in service would not arise as he did not complete his training successfully.

With the aforesaid observations, the Single Judge order was upheld by the Division Bench. Consequently, the writ appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Sachin Kumar Thakur v. Office of the Commandant Assam Rifle Taning Centre and School & Ors.

Case No. : WA/14/2025

Counsel for the Petitioner : MD Apzal Ansari, M Solo

Counsel for the Respondents : N/A