A Force Court trial may be dispensed with only when both Rule 20 conditions are satisfied.

The petitioner, an Assam Rifles Subedar, was accused of accepting Rs. 30,000 as illegal gratification from contractor C.C. Mathew following the “Operation Hilltop” sting operation.

A General Assam Rifles Court (GARC) was convened in 2017, but its proceedings did not proceed after litigation over its jurisdiction to try offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

After the Supreme Court upheld that jurisdiction and the Meghalaya High Court disposed of the related appeal, the Assam Rifles cancelled the original convening order in March 2020.

In October 2021, the petitioner was dismissed under Section 11(1) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 and Rule 20 of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010, on the basis of material from the Court of Inquiry and Summary of Evidence.

His appeal was rejected in March 2022.

He challenged the dismissal and appellate orders, including on grounds concerning the decision to dispense with a GARC trial and the opportunity to test Mathew’s statement.

Section 11 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, read with Rule 20 of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010, permits termination without a Force Court trial only where the competent authority is satisfied both that trial is inexpedient or impracticable and that continued service is undesirable; those conditions require reasoned consideration and are subject to judicial review.

Section 98 prescribes the limitation period for commencement of trial, and its proviso addresses exclusion of periods during which proceedings are stayed by a court.

Rule 49(2) recognises the accused’s right to cross-examine witnesses, while Rule 49(6) permits written statements in specified circumstances; use of that procedure must still afford a fair opportunity to answer the evidence.

Rule 183(8) provides safeguards in a Court of Inquiry, including an opportunity to know and challenge adverse evidence.

The Court drew guidance from Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398, and Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab, (2006) 13 SCC 581, that exceptional power to dispense with a regular inquiry cannot be exercised arbitrarily or without supporting material.

It also considered Shibu Limbu v. Union of India & Ors., W.A. No. 116/2025 (High Court of Tripura, 3 August 2026), on the application of Rule 20, and Union of India v. Harjeet Singh Sandhu, (2001) 5 SCC 593, while recognising that an independent administrative power remains subject to its statutory conditions and judicial review.

The GARC had been convened, and its inability to proceed arose in the context of litigation over jurisdiction; the respondents therefore had to assess the legal effect of the original convening order, its later cancellation, Section 98 and the intervening circumstances before concluding that trial was impracticable.

The stated difficulties—including the passage of time, changes in personnel, witness availability and COVID-19 restrictions—could explain administrative challenges but did not, without adequate assessment, establish both Rule 20 conditions.

Further, because no GARC verdict was reached and the dismissal relied on prior proceedings, the authority had to ensure a fair opportunity to meet the evidence.

The petitioner’s refusal of a written questionnaire was relevant, but did not by itself resolve whether the procedure was adequate given the importance of Mathew’s statement and the other material considered cumulatively.

The appellate decision did not cure these deficiencies.

It set aside the dismissal order dated 18 October 2021 and the appellate order dated 11 March 2022, directed the respondents to provide consequential service benefits under the applicable rules—including retiral benefits if the petitioner had superannuated—and allowed the writ petition without costs.