Meghalaya High Court
Date Of Order: 11.04.2025 vs State Of Meghalaya Represented By The … on 11 April, 2025
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
2025:MLHC:296-DB
Serial No. 01 HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Daily List AT SHILLONG
WA No. 25 of 2024
Date of order: 11.04.2025
Amzad Khan
...Appellant
- versus -
1. State of Meghalaya represented by the Commissioner and Secretary
to the Government of Meghalaya, Home (Police) Department.
2. The Director General of Police, Meghalaya, Shillong.
3. The Inspector General of Police (TAP), Meghalaya, Shillong.
4. The Assistant Inspector General of Police (A), Meghalaya, Shillong.
5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (TAP), Meghalaya, Shillong.
6. The Commandant 1st MLP Battalion, Mawiong, Shillong.
...Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice I.P. Mukerji, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Appellant : S. Deb, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. N.D. Chullai, AAG with
Mr. E.R. Chyne, GA
i) Whether approved for Yes
reporting in Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication No
in press:
JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon’ble, the Chief Justice) (Oral)
We have gone through the impugned judgment and order dated
13th April, 2023 passed by a learned single judge of this Court dismissing
the writ petition.
Page 1 of 5
2025:MLHC:296-DB
The learned judge is absolutely right in observing and holding that
the writ court will not appraise the evidence in a departmental proceeding
as a court of appeal. Very rightly his lordship did not interfere with the
findings arrived at by the inquiry officer and by the appellate authority.
But we have a point to make. It is with regard to the proportionality of
punishment. The appellant has been removed from service.
Admittedly, during the material period, he was hospitalised,
undergoing psychiatric treatment coupled with treatment for
detoxification so as to cure him from alcohol dependence. It is also
pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents that inspite of
obtaining a medical fitness certificate, he did not join duty.
Although both the adjudicating authorities have narrated the facts
and have also enumerated the evidence before them, we find that there is
insufficient analysis of the evidence preceding the finding.
The first adjudicating authority, being the Commandant in his
order dated 12th June, 2020 observed as follows:
“Thus, in view of the above facts and circumstances, and after
carefully examining the findings of the EO who has proved the
charge framed against the delinquent, that he had wilfully remain
absent from duty w.e.f. 14th December 2019 till 18th March 2020
and thereby the delinquent has failed to maintain absolute
integrity and devotion to duty, which by itself is an act which is
unbecoming of a member of the discipline force. Moreover, on
perusing the service records of the delinquent, it can also be seen
that the delinquent is a habitual absentee who has been frequently
found to be absent from duty without obtaining prior permissionPage 2 of 5
2025:MLHC:296-DBor approval of the Competent Authority; despite his pay being
held up and leave without pay being awarded in several occasions
for unauthorized absence from duty, the delinquent has not yet
improve his misdemeanours and the same has been articulated in
length in this instant DP. Therefore, based upon these enunciated
facts I do hereby pass this order without prejudice, impartiality
and biasness, keeping in mind the principles of natural justice,
that the delinquent is hereby awarded the punishment of
“REMOVAL FROM SERVICE” from the date of passing this
order.”
First of all, past absence was not the subject matter of this
departmental proceeding.
Secondly, how the “EO… has proved the charge against the
delinquent” is not discussed.
The Appellate authority in his order dated 15th February, 2021 has
held as follows:
“vii. The Enquiry was conducted by Shri. B.P. Joshi, MPS, Asstt.
Commandant, 1st MLP Bn, Mawiong and Sub-Inspector Shri
Andarning Nongrum, Reserve Officer, 1st MPL Bn.,
Mawiong, was appointed as the Presenting Officer. The
Enquiry Officer duly conducted the enquiry and after
observing all the basic requirement of an enquiry wherein
the petitioner has been offered a fair and reasonable
opportunity to defend himself, the enquiry officer had
discharged his duty without bias and without vindictiveness,
and the Disciplinary Authority had conducted himself
objectively and dispassionately in dealing with evidences
and materials or record when drawing up the final order
which he had complied with and submitted his report that
the charges against Ex-U/Lnk Amzad Khan were proved
beyond reasonable doubt. The Disciplinary, namely,
Commandant, 1st MLP Bn vide B.O. No. 3347 dated
12.06.2020 removed the Ex-U/Lnk Amzad Khan from
service.
Page 3 of 5
2025:MLHC:296-DB
viii. In the above premises, I have applied my mind and examined
the documents on records and found that the Department
Enquiry was conducted in a free and fair manner and all
opportunity have been given to the appellant to defend
himself. Hence, taking into consideration the appeal of Ex-
U/Lnk Amzad Khan for reinstatement into service is
rejected. The indiscipline conduct cannot be condoned and
the quantum of punishment is not excessive. Hence I find
no reason to interfere with the order of “Removal from
Service” passed by the Disciplinary Authority, namely,
Commandant, 1st MLP Bn., Thus, the appeal preferred
by Ex-U/Lnk Amzad Khan stands disposed.”
No intelligible reasons have been advanced by the Appellate
authority.
On the basis of this kind of inquiry and analysis into the alleged
misconduct of the appellant, the punishment of removal from service
appears to us to be a little disproportionate.
We have considered the types of punishment that can be inflicted
on a delinquent, under the rules.
We dispose of this appeal by substantially affirming the
impugned judgment and order of the learned single judge but directing
the Appellate authority, the Deputy Inspector General of Police (TAP),
Meghalaya, Shillong to substitute any punishment apart from dismissal
from service, removal from service or compulsory retirement for the
punishment imposed within four weeks of communication of this order.
This order will not operate to reinstate the appellant in
service. He is to be reinstated within two weeks of the punishment
Page 4 of 5
2025:MLHC:296-DB
order, in terms of our order being made by the Deputy Inspector General
of Police (TAP).
We warn the appellant that in case of future delinquency, no
leniency shall be shown to him.
(W. Diengdoh) (I.P. Mukerji)
Judge Chief Justice
Signature Not Verified Page 5 of 5
Digitally signed by SYLVANA
LIZ KHARBHIH
Date: 2025.04.16 18:51:34 IST
[ad_1]
Source link