LALRINMAWIA RALTE Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-Court appeal is preferred by the appellant against the Judgment dtd. 24/7/2024 of the learned Single Judge passed in WP(C) No.309 of 2024 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant against his dismissal from service was dismissed.

(2.) In response to the show-cause notice, the appellant filed his written statement dtd. 17/2/2021. As the written statement was found not satisfactory, a departmental proceeding was taken up against the appellant and an enquiry officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry into the allegations made against the appellant. The enquiry officer, after holding the enquiry, came to a finding that the allegations against the appellant were proved beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appellant was dismissed from service vide B.O. No. 2770 dt. 19/5/2021 issued by the Commandant, First Battalion Meghalaya Police, Mawiong, Shillong. The appellant preferred a statutory appeal against his dismissal before the Director General of Police, which was disposed of by order dtd. 11/8/2021 without any interference with the order of dismissal. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed the writ petition challenging his dismissal from service. The learned Single Judge by the impugned Judgment dtd. 24/7/2024 dismissed the writ petition by holding that in view of the categorical admission of the relevant charges by the appellant, no case has been made out.

(3.) Assailing the decision of the learned Single Judge, Mr. S. A. Sheikh learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that the appellant had never admitted to any of the charges and the alleged unauthorized absence was not willful but because of sickness of the appellant. He contends that since the appellant was dismissed after holding a full-fledged departmental proceeding and not on the basis of the alleged admission in his written statement, the department was duty bound to follow all the procedures laid down by law. He submits that the allegation of failure on the part of the appellant to report or resume his duty inspite of issuance of several notices has not been proved by any of the witnesses in the departmental enquiry. He further submits that no presenting officer was appointed in the enquiry and no defence assistance was provided to the appellant and he was also not supplied with a copy of the enquiry report. He also submits that the appellant was not provided with a list of witness at any point of time hampering appellant's defence at the enquiry. In addition, the learned Counsel strongly argues that the punishment of dismissal from service of the appellant is grossly disproportionate and in total violation of doctrine of proportionality. He submits that the length of service of the appellant in the department should have been taken into consideration before passing the extremely harsh order of dismissal and the punishment of compulsory retirement would have been proper. He, therefore, prays that the impugned Judgment dtd. 24/7/2024 may be set aside and the punishment awarded may be modified allowing the appellant to go on compulsory retirement. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decisions reported in (1987) SCC Online Gau 84, (2005) SCC Online Gau 120, (2007) SCC Online Gau 551, (2010) 2 Gauhati Law Reports 811, (2008) 8 SCC 236, (1993) 4 SCC 727, (2024) SCC Online SC 3325, (2012) 3 SCC 178, (2016) 15 SCC 693, (2018) 18 SCC 341 and (2020) 3 GLR 244.