SANJEEB CH. MARAK Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner who was serving as Constable in the 6th Battalion of the Meghalaya Police was removed from service vide order dated 15th January, 2016, issued by the respondent No. 5, without holding any inquiry as provided under the Rules, but in exercise of the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. As per the impugned order, removal was based on the confidential report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, North Garo Hills, Resubelpara that the petitioner was involved in supplying confidential information to a banned militant outfit for which the petitioner was arrested and a case was registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The further case of the petitioner is that the impugned order passed, is devoid of any reasoning for not holding an inquiry, and that even the statutory appeal filed against the impugned order, has not been disposed of till date, compelling the petitioner to approach this Court by way of the instant writ application.

(2.) Mr. K.C. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was summarily removed from service by the impugned order, made purportedly in exercise of the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution but without reasons ascribed for dispensing with an inquiry. Thereafter, he submits, in the criminal case that was lodged against the petitioner, he was taken into custody and till date the criminal proceedings are pending and even the charge sheet has not been filed. He further submits that against the impugned order, the petitioner had filed statutory appeal but the same has been left in cold storage. As such, he prays that in view of the illegal action of the respondents in removing the petitioner from service without inquiry or ascribing any reasons as to why action was taken in exercise of the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) and further the statutory appeal as preferred not disposed, the impugned order is liable be quashed and set aside and he be reinstated in service.

(3.) Mr. H. Abraham, learned GA for the respondents in reply to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason for the appeal not being disposed expeditiously was because the same was not filed before the designated appellate authority which is the Inspector General of Police (TAP), Meghalaya, Shillong. In fact the appellate authority received the same after a considerable delay when the same was forwarded by the Commandant 6th MLP Battalion vide letter dated 21st July, 2017. He submits that as the appeal being delayed, would ordinarily receive no consideration, but however submits that the same can still be taken up for consideration. Furthermore, he submits that the criminal case that has been registered against the petitioner is very serious in nature and the same is still under investigation but till now the charge sheet has not yet been filed.