JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kumar; CJ. - The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P(C) No.602 of 2018 is in appeal, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 09.04.2021 passed by a learned Judge of this Court dismissing his writ petition.

2. Pipa Yaima Dangshawa Maring, the appellant, entered service as a Constable in the Manipur Police. He was promoted thereafter and became the Head Constable of the Commando Unit (CDO), Imphal East. While so, he was dismissed from service by the Governor, State of Manipur, in exercise of power under sub-clause (c) of the proviso to clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution, vide order dated 23.01.2018. Pursuant thereto, his name was struck off from the strength of the District Police, Imphal East District, Manipur, vide order dated 29.01.2018. These orders were assailed by him in W.P(C) No.602 of 2018. However, the learned Judge found no merit in his challenge and dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal.

3. Heard Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant; and Mr. Athouba Khaidem, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents.

4. Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu, learned counsel, would argue that there was no valid material for exercise of power under sub-clause (c) of the proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution. He would point out that only the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were relied upon to draw an adverse inference against the appellant, leading to his dismissal from service without an inquiry, and contend that reliance placed upon such statements would be hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Learned counsel would state that criminal proceedings are still pending as on date and contend that there was no necessity to exercise such drastic power against the appellant before culmination of those proceedings in an actual conviction. He would assert that the appellant must be presumed innocent till proven guilty and argue that the termination of his services without going through the normal procedure is wholly unsustainable in law.

Per contra, Mr. Athouba Khaidem, learned Government Advocate, would point out that a Committee of Advisors looked into the material available and then recommended to the Governor, State of Manipur, that this was a fit case for exercise of power under the Constitutional provision. He would contend that there is no illegality in the termination of the appellant's services and assert that no grounds are made out for appellate interference.

5. Article 311 of the Constitution deals with dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State. It reads thus:

'Article 311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State -

(1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State, shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.

(2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges.'

The first proviso is not of relevance presently. The second proviso to Article 311(2) is germane to this adjudication and it reads thus: -

'Provided further that this clause shall not apply -

(a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or

(b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or

(c) where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquir