Gauhati High Court
Cont.Cas(C)/232/2025 of TRILOSON BORO (UBC/76) Vs PRASANTA SAGAR CHANGMAI on 26 August 2026
GAHC010091342025 2026:GAU-AS:12334 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/232/2025 TRILOSON BORO (UBC/76) S/O-RABIN BORO, R/O- BLOCK D4, GRP COMPLEX, MALIGAON, BORIPARA, GUWAHATI-781012, ASSAM VERSUS PRASANTA SAGAR CHANGMAI
GAHC010091342025
2026:GAU-AS:12334
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/232/2025
TRILOSON BORO (UBC/76)
S/O-RABIN BORO, R/O- BLOCK D4, GRP COMPLEX, MALIGAON, BORIPARA, GUWAHATI-781012, ASSAM
VERSUS
PRASANTA SAGAR CHANGMAI
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NORTHERN RANGE, TEZPUR, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM- 784001
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR I RAFIQUE, N CHAKRABORTY,MS A AFREEN,MRS S A
CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : MR S BHARALI, BAIJOYONTA BAROOAH,MR. M DAS
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
27.08.2026
1. Heard Mr. C. Z. Yanthan, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. I. Rafique, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Barooah, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This Court under its order dated 28.01.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 4489/2024, the petitioner was permitted to approach the appellate authority and file an application for review as prescribed under Rule 27 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. It was further provided that if any such application is filed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, the authority vested with the power under Rule 27 of the Rules, 1964, will examine the case of the petitioner and pass an appropriate speaking order(s) after giving a due opportunity of hearing to the delinquent, including the petitioner. A further direction was issued that while passing such an order, the judgment rendered by the Apex Court as referred to in the order dated 28.01.2025, shall also be taken care of.
3. Mr. Barooah, learned counsel appearing for the respondents referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed submits that in compliance with this Court’s order dated 28.01.2025, a review order has been passed by setting aside the penalty of dismissal imposed upon the petitioner, Triloson Boro and he was inflicted with a penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. It was further decided that the petitioner is to be deemed to have been reinstated in service from the date of dismissal i.e. with effect from 31.12.2021, however, he should be treated as “not on duty” for all purposes, including pay and allowances, except for subsistence allowance already paid.
4. This Court has perused the review order dated 18.06.2025.
5. In view of the aforesaid, in the opinion of this Court, the order dated 28.01.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 4489/2024, stands complied with.
6. It is needless to say that the petitioner shall be at liberty to assail such review order, if he deems it fit.
7. Accordingly, this contempt petition stands closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant