Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MEGH) 96
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, J
LALRINMAWIA RALTE – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND 2 ORS. – Respondent
WP(C) 309 / 2021
Mr. S.A. Sheikh, Adv. for the Petitioner/Appellant(s); Mr. N.D. Chullai, AAG with Mr. E.R. Chyne, GA for the Respondent(s)
Admissions made by the petitioner during disciplinary proceedings negate the need for further evidence, and procedural lapses do not warrant overturning a justified dismissal.
Headnote:(A) Meghalaya Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 2011 - Rule 9 - Article 311 of the Constitution of India - Dismissal from service - Petitioner, a police constable, was dismissed for unauthorized absence after disciplinary proceedings found charges proved - Petitioner contended procedural violations in the enquiry process, including lack of a Presenting Officer and non-supply of documents - Court held that admissions made by the petitioner during proceedings negated the need for further proof of charges - Dismissal upheld as justified. (Paras 11, 18, 31, 35)
(B) Natural Justice - Right to fair hearing - The petitioner argued that he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and was not provided with the enquiry report - Court ruled that non-supply of the enquiry report did not cause prejudice as the petitioner had access to it through RTI and had admitted to the charges. (Paras 16, 22, 33)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed as a constable in 1996 and faced disciplinary action for absence from duty without leave. He was dismissed after an enquiry found the charges proved. The petitioner claimed procedural lapses in the enquiry process.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner had admitted to the charges of absence, which rendered the procedural arguments moot. The dismissal was deemed appropriate given the circumstances.
Issues: The main issues included whether the disciplinary proceedings adhered to proper procedures and whether the dismissal was justified given the petitioner's admissions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that admissions made by the petitioner during the proceedings negated the necessity for further evidence, and procedural lapses did not warrant overturning the dismissal.
Result: Petition dismissed as devoid of merits.
1. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed in the police force of the Meghalaya Police as a BN Constable on 14.03.1996 and is continuing his service since then.
2. The petitioner while posted at the 1 st Battalion of the Meghalaya Police at Mawiong, Shillong in the East Khasi Hills was issued a notice dated 02.02.2021 by the Commandant, 1st Battalion, Meghalaya Police for reportedly being found absent from General Roll Call w.e.f. 15.12.2020 and was directed to report to the office of the Commandant.
The petitioner was also made known that earlier, two notices, dated 17.12.2020 and 08.01.2021, respectively were also issued upon him, but he had no knowledge of such notices.
3. The petitioner in response to the notice dated 02.02.2021 then reported to the office of the Commandant, 1st MLP, Bn. and resumed duty on 08.02.2021 where he was assigned guard duty at Covid-19 Centre, Mawiong, Shillong.
4. The petitioner was then served with a show cause notice dated 10.02.2021 under Rule 9 of the Meghalaya Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 2011 read with Rule 66 of the Assam Police Manual Part-III as adopted by the Government of Meghalaya and Article 311 of the Constitution of India. He was called upon to response to the show cause notice wherein charges against him were indicated therein, including the charge that he was found absent from General Roll Call w.e.f. 15.12.2020 (AM) without any leave or permission from the competent authority.
5. In response to the said show cause notice dated 10.02.2021, the petitioner filed his written statement dated 17.02.2021 wherein he had explained the reasons of his absence from duty for the said period indicated.
6. However, the relevant authority, not being satisfied by his reply and explanation, then proceeded to draw up disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and Shri. E.B. Kyndiah, MPS, Assistant Commandant, 1st MLP Bn. was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the allegations made against the petitioner.
7. The Enquiry Officer then proceeded to conduct the enquiry and on completion of the same, the findings were returned to conclude that the charges against the petitioner stands “Proved beyond reasonable doubt”. Consequently, the competent authority then awarded the major punishment of “dismissal from service”, conveyed to the petitioner vide Notification B.O. No. 2770, dated 19.05.2021 issued by the Commandant, 1st Battalion Meghalaya Police, Mawiong, Shillong.
8. The petitioner, not being satisfied with the said order of dismissal dated 19.05.2021, preferred the statutory appeal before the Director General of Police, Meghalaya Police on 05.08.2021 with a prayer for reconsideration of the dismissal order. However, the appellate authority rejected his appeal vide order dated 11.08.2021.
9. Being highly aggrieved with the said order of dismissal from service dated 19.05.2021 and the dismissal of the appeal vide order dated 11.08.2021, the petitioner has accordingly preferred this instant writ petition with a prayer to set aside and quash the aforesaid impugned orders.
10. Heard Mr. S.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner who has submitted that the proceedings against the petitioner is vitiated inasmuch as the proper procedure in accordance with the relevant rules has not been followed by the relevant respondents when the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him.
11. The learned counsel has submitted that Rule 9 of the Meghalaya Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 2011 provides for procedure to imposed penalties. Under sub-Rule 2 of Rule 9 of the same it is provided that whenever a disciplinary authority delivers the charges to a delinquent, a list of witnesses and documents is also required to be attached to the same to prove the charges so made. This provision is mandatory and any deviation from it would vitiate the entire proceedings.
12. It is the contention of the petitioner that the show cause notice/charge memo contains only the state
