No.031522257 Ex Constable Gd Ujjal Singha vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors

Page No.# 1/13
GAHC010019662015

2026:GAU-AS:6217
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5001/2015
NO.031522257 EX CONSTABLE GD UJJAL SINGHA
S/O- SRI ABIR SINGHA, VILL.- MAINARBAND, P.O.- GOSSIPUR, P.S.-
UDARBAND, DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA and 3 ORS
REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME
AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 110001.
2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
BLOCK NO. 1
C.G.O. COMPLEX
LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI- 110003.
3:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE
NORT WEST SECTOR
CRPF
PINJOR
CHANDIGARH
TEH-PINJOR
DIST.- PANCHKHULA
HARYANA
PIN- 134104.
4:THE COMMANDANT
152 BN
CRPF
I.T.I. COMPLEX
SHASTRI NAGAR

Page No.# 2/13
P.O. and DIST.- GOALPARA
ASSAM
PIN- 783121
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S NATH,
Advocate for the Respondent : C.G.C., MR. S K MEDHI,MR. D C BORAH(R-1 to 4),ASSTT.S.G.I.
(R1-4)

BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
Date : 29-04-2026


Heard Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.K. Medhi,
learned CGC appearing for the respondent.
2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order dated 11-12-2014,
imposing a penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner, on conclusion of a
Departmental Proceeding instituted against him.
3. The petitioner, who at the relevant point of time, was serving as a Constable in the
152 Bn. of CRPF, was issued with a memorandum of charge dated 29-05-2014, instituting
a Departmental Proceeding against him, basing on 03 (three) Article of Charges. The
petitioner submitted his written statement against the said Memorandum of charge dated
29-05-2014. However, the same being found to be not satisfactory, an enquiry was
directed to be held against the petitioner. The petitioner participated in the enquiry
proceeding and on conclusion of the same, the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry
report on 12-10-2014. A copy of the said enquiry report was also furnished to the

Page No.# 3/13
petitioner, who had submitted his representation, thereon, on 16-11-2014. Thereafter, the
Disciplinary Authority, on consideration of the enquiry report, basing on the materials
coming on record, as well as the representation submitted by the petitioner to the enquiry
report, proceeded vide order dated 11-12-2014, to impose the penalty of dismissal of
service upon the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved by the imposition of the said
penalty vide order dated 11-12-2014, instituted an appeal against the same before the
Appellate Authority vide his appeal memo dated 16-11-2014. The Appellate Authority,
thereafter, vide order dated 13-03-2015, on considering the contentions raised by the
petitioner as well as the contemporaneous records, proceeded to reject the appeal so
preferred by the petitioner, thereby, affirming the order passed by the Disciplinary
Authority.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition.
4. Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has submitted that the
Article of Charge No. 1 levels against the petitioner an allegation of having entered into a
relationship with one L. Nandita Singha, by introducing himself as Devasish Singha and
for the purpose had tampered his identity card, to be perverse. Mr. Nath submits that the
said charge was not established during the enquiry and no material was brought on
record that the petitioner had forged his identity card to project himself as Devasish
Singha, in place of Ujjal Singha, for the purpose of entering into a relationship followed by
marriage with said L. Nandita Singha. He submits that the respondent authorities had not
proceeded to carry out any forensic examination of the purported forged documents
allegedly furnished by the petitioner to said L. Nandita Singha and accordingly, the

Page No.# 4/13
conclusions reached that the petitioner has forged the said document not being
established, the said charge framed against the petitioner would have to be held to have
not been established.
5. With regard to the Article of Charge No. 2, it is submitted that the same pertains to
the allegation levelled against the petitioner of having contracted a second marriage with
one Premabati Singha, without divorcing his first wife L. Nandita Singha. Mr. Nath submits
that the marriage with L. Nandita Singha not having been established to having been
contracted and it also not being established that the said marriage was so performed by
following the rituals so mandated for the purpose, the marriage contracted by the
petitioner with Premabati Singha cannot be said to be a second marriage entered into by
him and accordingly, the allegation of bigamy so levelled against him would not be
sustainable. Accordingly, he submits that the first marriage of the petitioner not being
established to have been so performed by following the prevalent customs of the
community to which the parties belong, the allegation that the petitioner had contracted a
second marriage with Premabati Singha is clearly perverse and the said article of charge
also cannot be held to be established against the petitioner.
rd
6. With regard to 03 (third) Articles of Charge, Mr. Nath has submitted that the
same pertains to an allegation levelled against the petitioner of having suppressed the
fact of a case being lodged against him before the Udarband Police Station. Mr. Nath
submits that the said case was so registered on an FIR lodged by said L. Nandita Singha.
He further submits that the said case being false to the core of it and having been
instituted on a misunderstanding arising was not informed by him to his authorities. Mr.

Page No.# 5/13
Nath has submitted that the said case, however, was subsequently, set aside by the
learned Addl. Sessions Judge, (FTC), Silchar, vide judgment and order dated 30-05-2015,
in Crl. Revision No. 55/2014. Accordingly, he submits that basing on the said charge, no
penalty would be permissible to be imposed upon the petitioner, herein.
7. In the above premises, Mr. Nath submits that the penalty of dismissal from service
as imposed upon the petitioner being so imposed without there being any admissible
evidence to base the conclusions drawn by the authorities that the allegations levelled
against the petitioner in the memorandum of charge dated 29-05-2014 was established,
the penalty of dismissal from service as imposed upon the petitioner, would mandate
interference from this Court.
8. Per contra, Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned CGC appearing for the respondents submits
that on receipt of a complaint from L. Nandita Singha, of the petitioner entering into a
marriage with her by projecting himself to be Devasish Singha and thereby, cheating her,
a court of enquiry was ordered by the Commandant, 152 Bn. CRPF on 14-04-2014 and
the Deputy Commandant of the Battalion was appointed as Presiding Officer to enquire
into the facts. It is submitted that during the court of enquiry, it was established that the
petitioner, while in service in the force had made a fake identity card No. 101664, on his
own and had inserted, therein, his coloured photograph and changed his name to
Devasish Singha. A copy of the said identity card was also given to L. Nandita Singha. He
submits that basing on the findings of the Court of Enquiry, a Departmental Proceeding
having been directed to be held against the petitioner, the Memorandum of Charge dated
29-05-2014, came to be issued to the petitioner. It is submitted by Mr. Medhi that in the

Page No.# 6/13
enquiry so held the charges levelled against the petitioner stood established and the
Enquiry Officer basing on the materials coming on record, in his enquiry report had held
the charges levelled against the petitioner to have been so established. It is submitted
that the Disciplinary Authority, on receipt of the said enquiry report along with the
representation submitted, thereon, by the petitioner, had proceeded, vide the impugned
order dated 11-12-2014, to appreciate the materials coming on record and having found
that the petitioner to be not fit to be retained in the force, had proceed to impose upon
him the penalty of dismissal from service. He submits that the Appellate Authority had on
an appeal being preferred by the petitioner proceeded, vide order dated 13-03-2015, to
reject the appeal after examining the contemporaneous records. Mr. Medhi submits that
although in the enquiry, the petitioner was afforded all reasonable opportunity to defend
the charges levelled against him, the petitioner had miserably failed to elicit any material
in his support, from the witnesses who had deposed in the enquiry, including the
complainant L. Nandita Singha. Accordingly, Mr. Medhi submits that the charges levelled
against the petitioner having been established in the enquiry, the penalty as imposed by
the Disciplinary Authority upon the petitioner vide order dated 11-12-2014, being
proportionate to the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the same would not
mandate interference from this Court.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the
materials available on record.
10. Vide memorandum of charge dated 29-05-2014, the following Articles of Charge
were framed against the petitioner.

Page No.# 7/13
“ MOD-1 (Artcle – 1)
That the Force No. 031522257 CT/GD Ujjal Singha A/152 Bn CRPF GD while
in service of CRPF has made a fake service identity card No. 101664 of his own and
inserted therein coloured photo. In identity card his name has been changed as
Debasish Singha and changed other description in the identity card. The employee
in the fake identity card has changed his name as CT/GD Debasish Singha and one
photocopy of the fake identity card has given to one girl of locality Smti L. Nandita
Singha, daughter of Fulbabu Singha, Vill- Chesri, PO & PS- Udharband, Cachar,
Assam. Introducing him as Debasish Singha he engaged in love affairs with Smti. L.
Nandita Singha, daughter of Sri Fulbabu Singha since November, 2010 and on
15.07.2013 he married her at Silchar Court. On 16/12/2013 detached relation with
that girl. No. 031522257 CT/GD Ujjal Singha A/152 Bn CRPF has tempered
Government document, as such being a member of Force he has violated Rule 11
(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 which is punishable offence.
MOD-2 (Article-2)
That, No. 031522257 CT/GD Ujjal Singha A/152 Bn CRPF serving in CRPF
has introduced himself as Debasish Singha to Smti L. Nandita Singha, daughter of
Sri Fulbabu Singha and made love affair with her since November, 2010 and on
15.07.2013 he has married L Nandita Singha at Silchar Court. The employee
without divorce to his first wife L. Nandita Singha has married Smti Premabati
Singha, daughter of (L) Kh Bir Chandra Singha of Badripar, P.O- Machpara, P.S.
Silchar on 17.12.2013 at Silchar Court. As per Rule 15 of CRPF Rules, 1955 no
member of the Force whose wife is alive shall marry for second time without
permission of Government also shall not marry for second time which is not
permissible under the Rule. But the employee has married for second time without
divorce to first wife which is a condemnable offence. As such No. 031522257
CT/GD Ujjal Singha A/152 Bn CRPF being a member of Force has violated Rule 11
(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 which is a punishable offence.

MOD-3 (Article-3)
That No. 031522257 CT/GD Ujjal Singha, A/152 Bn CRPF serving in CRPF
has introduced himself as Debasish Singha to Smti L. Nandita Singha, daughter of
Sn Fulbabu Singha and made love affair with her since November, 2010 and on
15.07.2013 he has married L. Nandita Singha at Silchar Court. He has cheated Smti
L. Nandita Singha, daughter of Sri Fulbabu Singh and Smti L. Nandia Singha has
lodged a case on 02.01.2014 No. 03/2014 U/S 493/417/323/506/34 IPC at

Page No.# 8/13
Udharband P.S, Dist- Cachar, Assam. The employee has not informed about the
case to the department. He has concealed about the case to the department and
for this being a member of Force No. 031522257 CT/GD Ujjal Singha A/152 Bn
CRPF has violated Rule 11 (1) of CRPF Rules, 1949 which is a punishable offence.”

11. A perusal of the article of charge No. 1 would reveal that it was alleged against the
petitioner that he had made a fake identity card bearing No. 101664 on his own and had
inserted therein a coloured photograph. In the identity card so made the petitioner had
changed his name as Devasish Singha and also changed other descriptions in the identity
card. It is further alleged that a photocopy of the said fake identity card was also given to
L. Nandita Singha and he had entered into a marriage with her on 15-07-2013, after
being in a relationship with her since November, 2010. The said allegation was considered
in the enquiry by the Enquiry Officer and basing on the materials coming on record, the
Enquiry Officer had drawn the following conclusions:-
“ On the basis of the statements of witnesses and documents produced, the
allegation No. 1 that the Force No. 031522257 CT/GD Ujjal Singha A/152 Bn CRPF
GD while in service of CRPF has made a fake service identity card No. 101664 of
his own and inserted therein coloured photocopy. In identity card his name has
been changed as Debasish Singha and changed other description in the identity
card. The employee in the fake identity card has changed his name as CT/GD
Debasish Singha and one photocopy of the fake identity card has given to one girl
of his locality Smti L Nandita Singha, daughter of Fulbabu Singha, Vill-Chesri, P.O &
P.S- Udharband, Cachar, Assam. Introducing him as Debasish Singha he engaged in
love affairs with Smti. L. Nandita Singha, daughter of Sri Fulbabu Singha since
November, 2010 and on 15.07.2013 he married her at Silchar Court. On
16/12/2013 detached relation with that girl. No. 031522257 CT/GD Ujjal Singha
A/152 Bn CRPF has tempered Government document, as such being a member of
Force he has violated Rule 11 (1) of CRPF Act, 1949 which is punishable offence
has been Fully proved.”

12. Smti. L. Nandita Singha had deposed in the said enquiry as witness No. 2. A

Page No.# 9/13
perusal of the deposition of said L. Nandita Singha, would go to reveal that she had
deposed that the petitioner had projected himself as Devasish Singha and basing on the
said projection made, they had entered into a relationship and the petitioner had assured
that he would marry her. A perusal of the deposition made by L. Nandita Singha, during
her cross-examination by the petitioner in the enquiry would reveal that she had
projected that the identity card, in question, was given to her after her marriage with the
petitioner which was solemnized on October, 2013. She had further deposed that the
identity card was necessary for registration of their marriage as she was having her
identity card, but did not have the identity card of the petitioner. The said evidence
coming on record clearly establishes the fact that the petitioner, herein, had submitted
one identity card to L. Nandita Singha and in the said identity card he had projected his
name as Devasish Singha. The said identity card had identified the petitioner as a
member of the CRPF. Accordingly, it is apparent that the petitioner had submitted a
forged the identity card of his own and therein, had changed his name and other
particulars. Accordingly, the allegation levelled against the petitioner in article of charge
No. 1 of having tempered with Government document, is found to have been established
in the enquiry. The petitioner during his cross-examination of witness No. 2, had not even
suggested that the identity card as produced by the said witnesses, was not given to her
by him.
13. With regard to the article of charge No. 2, it is seen that the same levels an
allegation against the petitioner that he having introduced himself as Devasish Singha to
L. Nandita Singha and being in a relationship with her since November, 2010, had married

Page No.# 10/13
her on 15-07-2013. It is further alleged that after the marriage contracted by the
petitioner with L. Nandita Singha, he had without divorcing her, entered into a second
marriage with Premabati Singha on 17-12-2013. During her cross-examination by the
petitioner, L. Nandita Singha had submitted that they were married at Hanuman Shiva
Temple at Tulapatti, Silchar and only both of them were present at the relevant point of
time. She further deposed that after the marriage she had gone to her house. L. Nandita
Singha further deposed during her such cross-examination by the petitioner that an
affidavit was sworn with regard to the marriage entered into by her with the petitioner in
the court and at the relevant point of time only both of them and an advocate was
present. The affidavit stated to have been executed in the matter between the petitioner
and the said L. Nandita Singha was placed on record and on a perusal of the same, it is
revealed that therein, it was on oath stated that the petitioner and L. Nandita Singha
were living as husband and wife for a long time and had decided to get married and
accordingly, they both married each other on 14-07-2013 observing all formalities at the
Shiv Temple and living as husband and wife. The said disclosure made from the affidavit
so sworn by the petitioner and L. Nandita Singha was not disputed by the petitioner. The
petitioner had not raised any question to L. Nandita Singha with regard to execution of
the said affidavit, other than only asking her that at the time of signing of the affidavit
who were present. The said affidavit having come on record and the same having
demonstrated that the petitioner had married L. Nandita Singha in the Hanuman Shiv
Temple at Tulapatti, Silchar, by observing all required formalities, the petitioner is found to
have entered into a proper marriage with said L. Nandita Singha. Premabati Singha, i.e.

Page No.# 11/13
the person whom the petitioner had married for the second time, during her deposition,
had submitted that the petitioner had married her on 15-12-2013 in a Shiv Temple at
Silchar. It is further brought on record that after the said marriage was so solemnized, the
petitioner and Premabati Singha, had sworn affidavit in the similar manner, as was sworn
between the petitioner and L. Nandita Singha on 28-04-2014 and therein, also it was
stipulated that the affidavit is required to declare the marriage solemnized between them
on 15-12-2013. Accordingly, considering the modus operandi adopted by the petitioner for
entering into the marriages firstly with L. Nandita Singha in a temple by observing all
formalities and thereafter, executing an affidavit before Notary Public and thereafter,
entering into a marriage with Premabati Singha in a Shiv Temple and thereafter, executing
a similar affidavit, the petitioner is found to have deliberately entered into marriages with
two different ladies and accordingly, the charge levelled against the petitioner of having
married for the second time without receiving permission from the Government is found
to have been established. The Enquiry Officer with regard to the article of charge No. 2
had drawn the following conclusions basing on the materials coming on record:-
“ On the basis of evidence produced and statement of witnesses the
allegation in MOD No. 2 that Force No. 031522257 CT/GD Ujjal Singha A/152 Bn
CRPF serving in CRIPF Mas introduced himself as Debasish Singha to Smti L.
Nandita Singha, daughter of Sri Fulbabu Singha and made love affair with her since
November, 2010 and on 15.07.2013 he has married L. Nandita Singha at Silchar
Court. The employee without divorce to his first wife L Nandita Singha has married
Smti Premabati Singha, daughter of (L) Kh Bir Chandra Singha of Badripar, P.O-
Machpara, P.S- Silchar on 17.12.2013 at Silchar Court. As per Rule 15 of CRPF
Rules, 1955 no member of the Force whose wife is alive shall marry for second
time without permission of Government also shall not marry for second time which
is not permissible under the Rule. But the employee has married for second time
without divorce to first wife which is a condemnable offence. As such No.
031522257 CT/GD Ujjal Singha A/152 Bn CRPF being a member of Force has

Page No.# 12/13
violated Rule 11 (1) of CRPF Act, 1949 which is a punishable offence is fully
PROVED”
14. This Court on perusal of the said conclusions of the Enquiry Officer finds that the
same is so based on the materials coming on record and accordingly, the said conclusions
so drawn by the Enquiry Officer would not mandate interference from this Court.
15. With regard to the Article of Charge No. 3, this Court finds that the same pertains
to non-disclosure before the departmental authority about the case instituted against the
petitioner by L. Nandita Singha. It is true that the said case was subsequently set aside
on a technicality by a Revisional Court. However, on a consideration of the Article of
Charge No. 3, it is revealed that the same alleges non-disclosure of the case instituted
against the petitioner and not about the merits of the said case. The allegation has been
established in the enquiry and accordingly, the conclusions drawn in this connection by
the Enquiry Officer to the effect that the said charge was established against the
petitioner would not mandate interference from this Court.
16. In view of the conclusions drawn by this Court, the misconduct alleged against the
petitioner, having been found to have been established, condoning of such misconduct
committed by the petitioner, who was a member of a disciplined force, and issuing
directions for reinstatement of the petitioner in his service, would have an adverse effect
on the overall image of the force and would also effect the public perception about the
force, inasmuch as, a person who is found to be guilty of an offence like bigamy or of
having cheated a lady, would now be permitted to continue as a member of such
disciplined force. The same in the considered view of this Court would have a cascading
effect on the overall moral and discipline of the force. Accordingly, for the established

Page No.# 13/13
misconduct on the part of the petitioner, the penalty of dismissal from service, as imposed
upon the petitioner is found to be proportionate to the misconduct committed by him.
17. For the aforesaid reasons, the penalty of dismissal as imposed upon the petitioner
vide order dated 11-12-2014, would not mandate any interference. Consequently, the
order dated 13-03-2015 passed by the Appellate Authority, would also not mandate any
interference.
18. Accordingly, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the
same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost.


JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Gobinda
Prasad
Sarma
Digitally signed by Gobinda Prasad Sarma
DN: c=IN, o=Personal, postalCode=781026, l=Kamrup Metro, st=Assam, street=HOUSE NO
396 BIRKUCHI, Birkuchi No.2, Chandrapur
Assam India 781026 OPPOSITE RAGHUNATH
CHOUDHURY HINDI SCHOOL, title=2165,
2.5.4.20=6928da6102aa078c3f0a167d2edfd91f
b1b69cf5496e925e109d715bae326785,
serialNumber=69de98d4f8795174293359cc3e 5ab3a2480fc7e847f928726a048502c9ebcf15,
[email protected], cn=Gobinda
Prasad Sarma
Date: 2026.05.07 15:23:44 +05'30'