ALARICK J. SANGMA Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Sen Gupta, learned State counsel appearing for the State respondents.

(2.) Petitioner's case in a nutshell is that the petitioner is a citizen of India belonging to the Garo Schedule Tribe of Meghalaya, who usually and habitually resides at the aforesaid address within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble High Court. The petitioner is a qualified citizen of India, having completed his studies from Meghalaya and was appointed as an Un -Armed Branch Sub -Inspector w.e.f. 10.02.1999 in West Garo Hills DEF vide D.O. No. 8575 dated, 25.10.1999. The petitioner was later transferred and posted to East Khasi Hills DEF after completion of his probationary period w.e.f 01.03.2001 vide D.O. No. 3755 Dated 03.04.2001. At present, the petitioner is holding the charge of Reverse Inspector of Williamnagar Police Reserve and is also looking after the work of Prosecution Inspector, Williamnagar Court.

(3.) On 12th October, 2014 late night while the petitioner was sleeping, at around 11:00 pm the petitioner was asked by some police personnel to report at the Williamnagar Police Station. The petitioner immediately reported to the Police Station but unfortunately in the said Police Station allegation was leveled against the petitioner that he has molested some girls. First Information Report was lodged by the so called victim girl namely Melisha D. Shira before the Officer -in -Charge of Williamnagar Women Police Station, East Garo Hills, Meghalaya inter alia it was alleged that on 12th October, 2014 at 5:00 pm, a case was registered as William -nagar Women Police Station Case No. 18 (10) of 2014 under Section 354 IPC, R/w Section 10 of POCSO Act, 2012 on the strength of the FIR dated 13.10.2014. As per Charge Sheet filed by the I.O. prima facie case was found well established under Section 354 IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and it was also stated that the petitioner was sent to stand a trial in the Court and witnesses will prove the case. It is to mention herein that the list of the witnesses of Criminal trial and the department proceeding are same and moreover as per the said memorandum the petitioner was to show cause as to why he should not be liable to be punished under Rule 66 of APM, Part III as adopted by State of Meghalaya for failing to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and thereby committed gross misconduct which is unbecoming of a member of a Discipline Force and thus violated Rule 3(1) of Meghalaya Service (Conduct) Rules 1990, Section 108(1)(a)(c) 9(e) and 108(2)(e) of the Meghalaya Police Act 2010, Rules 45 of the Meghalaya Subsidiary Rules 1984. In compliance to the letter No.C.51/2014/50 Dated 01 -12 -2014, the petitioner submitted his explanation through the Superintendent of Police, East Garo Hills District, Williamnagar (Respondent No.4) to the Assistant Inspector General of Police (Adms), Meghalaya, Shillong (Respondent No.3).