GAUHATI HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON HABIZUR RAHMAN LASKAR V/S THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

GUWAHATI, India, June 16 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on May 15:

1. Heard Mr. P.K. Deka, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. CK Sharma Baruah, learned Government Advocate, Assam, for the State respondents.

2. By this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside of the impugned order dated 11.12.2014 (Annexure-2) passed by respondent No.4 by which a punishment in the form of compulsory retirement was imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner had also challenged a subsequent order dated 07.10.2025 (Annexure-10) by which the respondent No.4 had passed an order upholding the order of compulsory retirement dated 11.12.2014 in pursuance to the order of Hon'ble Division Bench in writ appeal No. 07 of 2023.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Constable in the Assam Police on 24.05.1989 and since the date of his appointment, he had rendered his service with utmost dedication and sincerity. During the service career, the petitioner states that an FIR was lodged against him before the Officer-In-Charge of Diphu Police Station stating inter alia that petitioner had committed rape upon the daughter of the informant and a case was registered vide Diphu P.S. Case No. 69/2013. The police upon completion of the investigation, submitted charge sheet and the trial started.

4. In the meantime, a disciplinary proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner and a show cause notice was issued to him on 21.01.2014 accompanied with a statement of allegation and list of documents. Thereafter, the departmental proceeding was conducted. The Enquiry Officer was appointed and an enquiry report was also submitted and based on the said enquiry report dated 11.12.2014, the disciplinary authority had imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner vide order dated 11.12.2014 and it be mentioned here in that during the time when the punishment was imposed, the criminal proceeding against the petitioner was going on.

5. Thereafter, the Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 20.12.2021 acquitted the petitioner for want of evidence. In fact in the said acquittal order, the Trial Court had recorded the conclusion that the prosecution side has miserably failed to proof that the accused person is guilty of committing offences under Section 366-A/376(2)(f)/342/377 and 419 of the IPC. The said judgment and order had attained finality and it was not put to challenge in the Higher Courts of law.

6. Before the Trial Court had acquitted the petitioner, the disciplinary proceeding had come to end and the punishment was imposed vide order dated 11.12.2014 and the punishment as stated above was compulsory retirement imposed upon the petitioner.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x0HcsTmXNNB3puLAkbNZg%2BKaYD5VKcT%2FZ2zJJlGJccfr&caseno=WP(C)/6551/2025&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010244312025&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.