THRONGKIU YIMCHUNGER Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue is as to whether the three Petitioners are fairly dealt with by the Disciplinary Authority. Does the impugned action of the Respondents has abridged the Constitutional guarantee of the Petitioners. The facts are summarised herein below :

(2.) The Petitioner No. 1 and 2 were appointed as Constable in the Nagaland Armed Police with effect from 4.5.1964. Petitioner No. 1 was promoted to the post of Lance Naik with effect from 1.9.92. Petitioner No. 2 was promoted by order dated 13.9.72 to the post of Lance Naik and by order dated 15.2.82 to the Post of Naik in the Nagaland Armed Police. Petitioner No. 3 was initially appointed as Lance Naik in the Nagaland Armed Police in the year 1970. He was promoted to the Post of Naik and Havildar and thereafter he was promoted as A.B.S.I, G.D., in the Nagaland Armed Police. At the time of issuance of the impugned order of dismissal all the three Petitioners were posted at the First Battalion in the Nagaland Armed Police and were discharging their duties in their respective capacities. At the relevant time the personnel of Nagaland Armed Police were deployed in the various location in the Perem Sub-Division of Nagaland. In course of such deployment, Armed Police numbering about 20 (Twenty) under the Command of Petitioner No. 3 were deputed from 'B' Coy Athibung Head Quarter to Chalkot Village for. guani duty. It is averred that after personnel reached their assigned areas the Jawans performed law and order duties in and around Old Chalkot Village but due to incessent rain the Platoan was unable to construct any defence position in the assigned area. On 14.6.93 the rain stopped and Platoon was getting ready do construct their defence position and in the meantime an order was received by line Platoon Commander for withdrawal of the Platoon from the assigned areas. Petitioner No. 3, the Platoon Commander made necessary arrangement for withdrawal of the Platoan from the assigned area i.e. Chalkot village. Accordingly, Petitioner No. 3 went to the Head Gaon Burah(G.B) of the village to inform him about the order of withdrawal of Platoon from the area. According to the Petitioner No. 3, when he was in the Gaon Bura's house, a large number of miscreants attacked the Chalkot Village with sophisticated weapons. Writ Petitioner No.3 on being attacked escaped through the kitchen window of the Gaon Bura's house and joined his men who were awaiting for their transport on withdrawal back to the Head Quarter at an elevated position. The Petitioner No. 3 tried to organise his Platoon to defend the Villagers from the attack of the miscreants. It was averred inter alia that when the Petitioner organised to defend the villagers from the attack of the miscreants they were seriously handicapped in their endeavour as the attackers have mixed up with the villagers. However exchange of fire took place and some of the armed Jawan under the command of the Petitioner No. 3 were able to retaliate fire and take position so that innocent villagers would not be killed. The miscreants were however able to set fire some villagers house and granaries. And in the exchange of fire a few villagers and some constables were killed. In view of the confusion some arms and ammunitions belonging to a few Jawans who were absent from their post were also lost in the melee. After an hour the arms group left the village and returned to the Jungle. Thereafter the incident was reported to the Company Commander in Athibung Head Quarter and the three Writ Petitioners and other Jawans who were stationed at Chalkot village returned to their head quarters and were assigned various other patrolling duties in the Athibung.Town and other nearby areas. On 9.8.93 the three Petitioners were summoned to the Battalion Head Quarter at Chumukedima and in the said Battalion Head Quarter the three Petitioners were served the impugned order of termination dated 23rd July, 1993 dismissing the three Petitioners from service under Rule 11 of the Nagaland Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1967. The impugned reasons recorded for not holding the enquiry which is specified in the paragraph -2 of the order. The relevant portion of paragraph-2 are culled out below :

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel of the respective parties and perusal of materials on record, the learned Single Judge upheld the order of dismissal dated 23rd July, 1993 and dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence the Appeal.