Discharge for incorrigible conduct requires compliance with Regulation 107 and meaningful procedural opportunity.

The petitioner, a Rifleman (General Duty) enrolled in the Assam Rifles on 1 August 2005, was discharged from service on 18 September 2019 after incurring four “Red Ink Entries” during his service career.

The Deputy Inspector General treated him as an “incorrigible offender” and held that his further retention in service was undesirable, exercising powers under Section 11(2) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, read with Rules 17 and 25 of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010.

Before the discharge order, the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice dated 11 July 2019 and submitted his reply on 23 July 2019, seeking retention in service and assuring that there would be no repetition of misconduct.

He challenged the discharge on the ground that the respondents had not followed the procedure under Regulation 107 of the Assam Rifles Regulations, 2016 and had not afforded him an effective opportunity of hearing.

1. Whether the petitioner could be discharged as an “incorrigible offender” on the basis of four Red Ink Entries without following the procedure prescribed under Regulation 107 of the Assam Rifles Regulations, 2016.

2. Whether issuance of a show-cause notice and consideration of the petitioner’s written reply constituted an adequate and legally compliant opportunity of hearing.

3. Whether the discharge order dated 18 September 2019 was liable to be quashed and whether the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement and consequential service benefits.

The Court applied Section 11(2) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, read with Rules 17 and 25 of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010, governing discharge from service.

It further applied Regulation 107 of the Assam Rifles Regulations, 2016, which prescribes the procedure for removal of undesirable, incorrigible or inefficient subordinate officers, under-officers and enrolled persons, including a fair decision-making process and adequate opportunity to the affected individual.

The Court relied on the coordinate Bench decision in Sandeep Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., WP(C) No. 1602/2019, judgment dated 12 March 2026, which held that an enrolled person proposed to be discharged as an “incorrigible offender” must receive adequate notice of the applicable procedure and the allegations, together with an impartial and meaningful opportunity to defend himself.

A mere opportunity to submit a reply does not cure non-compliance where the prescribed procedure for the proposed action has not been followed.

The Court found that the respondents discharged the petitioner specifically on the basis that his four Red Ink Entries rendered him an “incorrigible offender” and made his further retention undesirable.

Since that ground attracted the procedure contemplated by Regulation 107, the respondents were required to demonstrate compliance with that procedure, including adequate notice of the process and allegations and a meaningful opportunity of defence.

The record did not establish such compliance.

The fact that the petitioner had received a show-cause notice and had submitted a reply was insufficient because the notice-and-reply process did not, by itself, establish adherence to the procedure applicable to discharge on the ground of incorrigibility.

Applying Sandeep Kumar, the Court held that the procedural defect was material and that the impugned discharge could not be sustained.

The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner within one month from receipt of the certified order, and the period of his absence was to be treated as continuous service for all practical purposes.

The petitioner was directed to file an affidavit disclosing his earnings or income during the period out of service; thereafter, the respondents were to determine his entitlement to back wages and other actual monetary benefits.

The Court clarified that the respondents were not precluded from taking fresh action concerning the Red Ink Entries or the allegation of incorrigibility, provided such action was taken in accordance with law and after affording the petitioner due opportunity under the applicable Act, Rules and Regulations.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.