Reinstating Employee With Potential Mental Health Issues In Disciplined Force Could Be Dangerous: Meghalaya High Court

Background Facts

X (Employee), was enrolled as a Rifleman (Barber) in the Assam Rifles and had a perfect service record until his suspension. On 11.09.2015, the employee was reported missing from his post at 9 Assam Rifles along with his service weapon, a 5.56mm INSAS Rifle. He went to his barracks and fired three rounds at a fellow Rifleman, causing injuries to his right knee, right side of the neck, and lower abdomen. This incident led to the registration of an FIR under Section 307 IPC at Chiephobozou Police Station. Following the incident, the employee was arrested and placed in police custody.

A trial was conducted by the Assam Rifles Court where employee pleaded not guilty. The employee was found guilty, sentenced to three years of imprisonment in civil custody, and dismissed from service on 23.03.2018.

An appeal was filed by the employee on 16.03.2021 under Section 139(2) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, and Rule 178 of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010, against the order dated 23.03.2018. The appeal was rejected on 22.03.2022 due to delay and lack of merit. Then a writ petition was filed by the employee in the High Court of Meghalaya, claiming the punishment was disproportionate and the delay in filing was due to COVID-19. The writ petition was dismissed on 05.03.2024.

Aggrieved by the dismissal, the writ appeal was filed by the employee, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge and seeking reinstatement.

It was argued by the employee that the punishment of three years of imprisonment and dismissal from service was disproportionate to the alleged offenses. It was further contended that the Assam Rifles Court did not have jurisdiction to try his case under Section 56 of the Assam Rifles Act, as the incident occurred during his duty shift. Section 121 of the Assam Rifles Act was referred by the employee, suggesting that there have been procedural lapses related to his mental health (lunacy or insanity) that were not properly addressed during the trial.

On the other hand, it was contended by the Employer (Union of India) that the employee was found guilty of a serious offense. It was stressed that the employee posed a significant danger to other members of the Assam Rifles and could not be safely reinstated. It was emphasized that the misconduct had a direct impact on employment, as the incident occurred within the premises of the Assam Rifles and involved the employee's service weapon. It was argued that it was a continuous cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Assam Rifles Court.

Findings of the Court

It was acknowledged by the court that employee had been found guilty of a severe offense, and the employee had also been involved in previous instances of misconduct, for which he had been punished. It was found that the trial conducted by the Assam Rifles Court was in accordance with the provisions of the Assam Rifles Act and Rules. It was determined by the court that the punishment of three years of rigorous imprisonment and dismissal from service was proportionate to the seriousness of the offense committed by the employee.

The employee's claim that the Assam Rifles Court lacked jurisdiction under Section 56 of the Assam Rifles Act, was rejected by the court. It was noted that the offense had a direct connection to the employee's employment and occurred within the premises of the Assam Rifles, thus falling within the jurisdiction of the Assam Rifles Court. The case of Glaxo Laboratories (I) Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut and Others was relied upon by the court, wherein the Supreme Court held that the connection between misconduct and employment must be real, substantial and immediate, not remote. It was clarified by the Supreme Court that incidents occurring far from the establishment with no impact on employment cannot be considered misconduct under the standing order.

Addressing the employee's late claim of lunacy or insanity under Section 121 of the Assam Rifles Act, it was observed by the court that this issue had not been raised during the trial or before the learned Single Judge, making it inappropriate to consider at the appellate stage. Furthermore, it was emphasized by the court that reinstating an employee with potential mental health issues in a disciplined force could be dangerous.

It was held by the court that reinstating the employee could endanger the lives of other Riflemen and compromise the security environment. It was stressed by the court that maintaining discipline in the armed forces was important and that there were potential risks posed by the employee's return to service. The case of Mukesh Kumar Raigar Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others was relied upon by the court, wherein the Supreme Court held that it is absolutely mandatory on the part of the personnel in a disciplined force to maintain discipline of the highest order.

The order of the learned Single Judge was upheld by the court, deeming it valid and warranting no interference. Consequently, the writ appeal was dismissed.

Case No. : W.A.No.16/2024

Counsel for the Appellant : B. Deb, Adv with N.I. Choudhury, Adv

Counsel for the Respondents : N. Mozika, DSGI with A. Pradhan, Adv