SAILOVA SAILO Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioners, namely Mr. S'ailova Sailo and Mr. K. Lalrinpuina working as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police at the relevant time have been dismissed from service by the Superintendent of Police, Aizawl District in exercise of powers under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India holding that a regular departmental proceeding was not possible under the given circumstances of the case. Being aggrieved with thereby, the writ petitioners have challenged the aforesaid order praying for quashing of the order of dismissal, reinstatement and other service benefits.

(2.) Mr. George Raju, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners submitted that situation leading to the dismissal of the two writ petitioners was not so grave as to invoke the provision of Article 311(2) (b) of Constitution dispensing with the disciplinary proceedings under the Service Rules. He has also placed reliance on (1985) 3 SCC 398 (Union of India and anr-Vs- Tulsiram Patel), (1991)1 SCC 729(Chief Security Officer and others-Vs-Singasan Rabi Das), AIR 1997 SC 2670(Bishan Singh and others- Vs-State of Punjab and others) and (1991)1 SCC 362(Jaswant Singh -Vs-State of Punjab and others). The Learned Govt. Advocate was directed by this court to produce the relevant file in order to allow this court to examine the materials which impelled the disciplinary authority to dispense with the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings under the Service Law. The learned Govt. Advocate has produced the report submitted by the DySP(DSB) to the Superintendent of Police and a newspaper cutting along with the impugned order passed by the Superintendent ofPolice.

(3.) Before we refer to the case law cited by Mr. George Raju, it is considered necessary to examine the background which prompted the Superintendent of Police to issue an order of dismissal. The report submitted by the DySP(DSB) shows that the writ petitioners displayed black badges to show their grievances and discontentment. Except this obvert manifestation, there is nothing in this report to show that they have indulged in any other activities disrupting the services of the department. In his report, the DySP(DSB) has stated that he has briefly explained to the writ petitioners that in a police force, strike of any kind is against law. But this document or the order passed by the S.P. donot in any form suggest that the writ petitioners and under their leadership other officers went on strike or even decided to go on strike. The paper cutting only shows that a news item was published by a local daily to the effect that the employees in the prosecution Branch are not willing to work under the concerned DySP.