GREWITH MARAK Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By medium of this petition orders, dated 02.09.2014 passed by the respondent No.5 (Commandant) in terms whereof, the petitioner has been removed from service and dated 24.07.2015 passed by the respondent No.4 (Inspector General of Police, (TAP) Government of Meghalaya, Shillong) in terms whereof, appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of removal has been rejected are sought to be quashed.

(2.) During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments vis-a-vis severity of punishment by projecting that the punishment of removal as awarded is disproportionate to the act allegedly committed by the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the punishment is harsh as a result whereof, it is not only the petitioner but his family consisting of his wife and three children have to suffer. He would submit that the act committed by the petitioner was not deliberate. His service record of 20 years is unblemished and same has not been taken into consideration while awarding harsh punishment of removal from service. In support of his contentions placed reliance on the judgments reported in:

(3.) Learned Sr.GA in opposition submits that the petitioner belonged to the discipline force and was holding the position of Havildar, he could not afford to be negligent. It is his sheer negligence that a carbine machine gun along with two empty magazines were allegedly stolen by Darmen R Marak, private cook on 10.04.2014. He has compounded his negligence by not reporting the matter to his superior officers for a period of about 13 days. After a gap of 13 days, he has lodged the FIR on 23.4.14 and thereafter, on 24.4.14 has been placed under suspension. Later on, it surfaced during investigation of the case as registered against the cook that the carbine machine gun and two empty magazines were given by the said cook to Shri Philiport D. Shira @ Rakban GNLA, Area Commander. Thereafter, the said cook has also deserted from the banned GNLA organization and has formed a new organization, which by itself suggests that the punishment of removal is proportionate. In support of his contentions has relied on the judgments reported in: