Art. 311(2)(c) | Governor's Sanction To Delinquent's Dismissal Sans Inquiry Not Based On 'Subjective Satisfaction', Manipur HC Upheld Reinstatement

Recently, the Manipur High Court upheld the reinstatement of the Sub-Inspector of Police who was dismissed from the service because of his alleged links with the banned organization the People's Liberation Army/Revolutionary People's Front (PLA/RPF).

Affirming the Single Bench decision, the bench led by Chief Justice Siddharth Mridul and comprising Justices Ahanthem Bimol Singh and Golmei Gaiphulshillu Kabui objected to the Governor's sanction to the respondent's (sub-inspector) dismissal order under Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution which allows termination without inquiry in the interest of state security.

The appellant-state justified the dismissal by arguing that the Governor's subjective satisfaction was supported by verified reports and recommendations from the Committee of Advisors. It further claimed that conducting departmental inquiries was impracticable due to the sensitive and security-related nature of the respondent's alleged actions. The state emphasized that judicial review should focus solely on detecting malafide intent or extraneous factors, neither of which were present in this case.

In response, the respondent argued that procedural fairness was compromised, as the Governor's sanction order was issued without sufficient evidence or valid justification for invoking Article 311(2)(c). The respondent also contended that the state relied on uncorroborated and inadequate evidence, which failed to substantiate the allegations of prejudicial conduct.

Rejecting the Appellant's argument, Kabui J. in the judgment observed that the Governor's sanction to a dismissal order must not be marked only by a note of "may be approved" but should be backed by a subjective satisfaction. The Court found sustenance to the respondent's submission that his dismissal order was not backed by cogent and reliable material disempowering the Governor to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 311(2)(c).

“we are of the considered view that it is imperative for us to call the confidential file that was put up before the Hon'ble Governor and the learned Deputy Advocate General put up the confidential file before us and on perusal of the file, we did not find any cogent and reliable material to support the decision taken by the authorities and we did not find any observation of the Hon'ble Governor regarding the satisfaction to invoke Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution against the respondent, but only the words “may be approved”.”, the Court observed.

“In view of the situation deducible from the materials on record, we find absolutely no reason to hold that the satisfaction, as envisaged in the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is not expedient to hold an inquiry in the interest of security of the State, was arrived at, based on reasonable and cogent ground. In the official record there is no material indicating that there are sufficient and cogent reasons for dispensing with the inquiry in the interest of security of the State and in the absence of clear indication of the satisfaction, we hold that the invoking of Article 311(2)(c) by the State Government is malafide.”, the court added.

The Court said that the Governor's decision to invoke its power under Article 311(2)(c) would be open to judicial review if the Governor's decision to dispense with the inquiry into the allegations against the delinquent were not backed by its subjective satisfaction.

“In short, the Governor could not have arrived at the subjective satisfaction that it was not expedient to hold inquiry as contemplated under Article 311(2) second proviso clause (c) of the Constitution of India on the basis of the recommendation of the Committee of Advisor which was based purely on allegation as such, the decision to dispense with the departmental inquiry and satisfaction of the Governor is open to judicial review. As the satisfaction arrived at is vitiated by malafide and is based wholly on extraneous and irrelevant grounds.”, the court said.

“The disciplinary authority, in its order dated 13.07.2017, categorically stated that the Governor of Manipur is satisfied under sub-clause (c) of proviso to clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution that in the interest of security of State, it is not expedient to hold an inquiry in the case of involvement and association with subversive activities of the delinquent and the Governor satisfied with the information available, the activities of the delinquent are such to warrant his dismissal from service, accordingly, dismissed the delinquent.”, the court added.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Appearance:

For the appellants : Mr. H. Debendra, Deputy Advocate General assisted by A. Bheiga, Advocate

For the respondent : Mr. K. Roshan, Advocate assisted by Mrs. Donnapriya Asem, Advocate

Case Title: The State of Manipur & Ors. v. Shri Laishram Sushil Singh, WRIT APPEAL No. 18 of 2022

Click here to read/download the judgment