Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Manipur) 30

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Sanjay Kumar, Lanusungkum Jamir, JJ.
State Of Manipur - Appellant
Versus
Md. Yahiya Khan & Ors. - Respondents
WA Nos. 13 & 14 of 2021
Decided On : 11-03-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Samarjit Hawaibam, G.A, for the Appellant; Mr. M. Devananda, Advocate, for the Respondent No.1

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of personal satisfaction of the President or Governor in the interest of the security of the State under Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution, and the limited scope of judicial review in cases falling under clause (c).

Headnote:
Article 311 - Dismissal of Md. Yahiya Khan - Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Arms Act, 1959; Explosives Substances Act, 1908 - The court discussed the application of Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution and the relevant acts and sections in the dismissal of Md. Yahiya Khan. It highlighted the requirement of personal satisfaction of the President or Governor in the interest of the security of the State and the absence of the need to disclose reasons for dismissal under clause (c). The judgment also emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in cases falling under clause (c) and the protection of the Governor's satisfaction by the recommendation of a Committee of Advisors.
Fact of the Case:
Md. Yahiya Khan, a Rifleman in the 4th India Reserve Battalion, was arrested and subsequently dismissed from service on the grounds of involvement in subversive activities. He filed W.P. (C) No. 838 of 2016 challenging his suspension and seeking subsistence allowance, and W.P. (C) No. 249 of 2017 challenging his dismissal and seeking reinstatement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the suspension to be legal and upheld the dismissal order, rejecting the argument of malafides and lack of assistance from the Council of Ministers. It set aside the direction for reinstatement but confirmed the payment of subsistence allowance, subject to the submission of a required certificate by Md. Yahiya Khan.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of Md. Yahiya Khan's suspension and dismissal, the requirement of a departmental inquiry, and the entitlement to subsistence allowance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution, the absence of the need to disclose reasons for dismissal under clause (c), and the limited scope of judicial review in such cases. It also emphasized the protection of the Governor's satisfaction by the recommendation of a Committee of Advisors.
Final Decision: W.A. No. 13 of 2021 was allowed in part, setting aside the direction for reinstatement but confirming the payment of subsistence allowance. W.A. No. 14 of 2021 was allowed, setting aside the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 249 of 2017 and confirming the dismissal order.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kumar, CJ. - The State of Manipur is in appeal against two separate orders dated 27.01.2020 allowing W.P. (C) No. 838 of 2016 and W.P. (C) No. 249 of 2017. W.A. No. 13 of 2021 arises out of WP No. 838 of 2016 while W.A. No. 14 of 2021 pertains to W.P. (C) No. 249 of 2017.

2. Heard Mr. Samarjit Hawaibam, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the appellant in both appeals; and Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1 in both appeals.

3. Md. Yahiya Khan, respondent No. 1 in these appeals, was appointed as a Rifleman in the 4th India Reserve Battalion at Thenguchingjin in the State of Manipur on 21.08.2005. He was arrested on 19.05.2015 in connection with FIR No. 68(5)2015 registered on the file of Imphal City Police Station under Sections 121, 121A IPC; Sections 16(1)(b) and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Sections 25 (1)(a) and 25(1B) of the Arms Act, 1959; and Sections 4 & 5 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908 and remained in custody for more than 48 hours. He was accordingly placed under suspension with immediate effect by the Commandant of the 4th India Reserve Battalion, vide order dated 23.05.2015. The order indicated that, during the period of his suspension, the Headquarter of Md. Yahiya Khan was the Battalion Headquarter and he was not to leave the Headquarter without obtaining prior permission from the Commandant. The order also stated that he was entitled to get subsistence allowance as admissible under the rules during the period of suspension.

Md. Yahiya Khan filed W.P. (C) No. 838 of 2016 assailing the aforestated suspension order dated 23.05.2015 and seeking a direction to the authorities to release his subsistence allowance from the date of suspension. This writ petition was filed in October, 2016. An affidavit-in-opposition was filed therein by the authorities on 01.03.2017.

4. While matters stood thus, by order dated 25.03.2017, Md. Yahiya Khan was dismissed from service with immediate effect. Therein, the Under Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, stated that the Governor of Manipur was satisfied under sub-clause (c) of the proviso to clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution that in the interest of the security of the State, it was not expedient to hold an enquiry in the case of Md. Yahiya Khan's involvement and association with subversive activities and, on the basis of the information available, the Governor was satisfied that his activities were such as to warrant his dismissal from service and, accordingly, the Governor dismissed him from service with immediate effect. In turn, the Commandant of the 4th India Reserve Battalion issued order dated 27.03.2017 striking off the name of Md. Yahiya Khan from the strength of the unit with effect from 25.03.2017. His pay and allowances during the period of suspension were restricted to subsistence allowances.

Md. Yahiya Khan filed W.P. (C) No. 249 of 2017 challenging the dismissal order dated 25.03.2017 and seeking reinstatement in service.

5. Affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the authorities in W.P. (C) No. 249 of 2017 in January, 2018. They stated to the effect that Md. Yahiya Khan had started working with CorCom (Coordination Committee - a conglomerate of seven valley-based militant outfits in the State of Manipur) and was one of its active workers. Details were given of his subversive activities during December, 2014, in relation to throwing of hand grenades, which led to his arrest on 19.05.2015. They further stated that investigation had revealed that Md. Yahiya Khan used to engage in activities supporting the underground elements by transporting arms and ammunitions and was paid money. Despite being a member of the India Reserve Battalion under the State Police Department, he continued to work for the underground outfit. A Committee of Advisors was stated to have looked into the applicability of clause (c) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) and recommended that it would be inexpe