Meghalaya Police Member Found Passing Info To Extremist Outfit: High Court Upholds His Removal Sans Inquiry

The Meghalaya High Court last week upheld the removal (sans inquiry) of a member of the State Police Force who was found had passed on information pertaining to police operations and movements to a banned and extremist outfit by the name of Garo National Liberation Army.

Finding a justification in the move to remove him from service without giving him an opportunity to defend the charges leveled against him, the Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdoh observed thus:

"When a member of the police force was found betraying his own force and supplying information to an extremist outfit that the police organisation was trying to deal with, it was justifiable on the part of the disciplinary authority to consider it to be not reasonably practicable to afford the writ petitioner an opportunity of dealing with the charge against him in the course of any inquiry."

The case in brief 

Essentially, one Sanjeeb Ch. Marak was removed from Meghalaya Police Force vide order dated January 15, 2016. In his dismissal order, a confidential report was referred to which stated that Marak had passed on information to a banned outfit.

Further, the order mentioned the casualties suffered by the police and opined that in the light of the material available against Marak, it was incumbent that he be removed from service immediately without any formal inquiry.

The appellate authority had also expressed satisfaction that senior police officials had dealt with the matter in an appropriate manner and the obvious lack of loyalty on the part of the appellant called for his summary dismissal.

Challenging his removal from services, Marak had moved an appeal before the division bench of the High Court, after his similar plea was dismissed by the Single Judge of the HC.

It was his submission that there was no reason to dispense with an inquiry in terms of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution and his grievance was that he was not afforded an opportunity to deal with the charges leveled against him.

[NOTE: As per Article 311(2) of the Constitution, a member of a civil service of the Union or of an all-India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State can be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank only upon an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges leveled against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect thereof. However, Article 311(2)(b) lists down certain scenarios wherein a person can be removed from service without conducting such an inquiry.]

Court's observations

Taking into account the confidential report and the dismissal order, the Court, at the outset, observed that the relevant order, in fact, did not expressly indicate why it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry and give the appellant an opportunity to deal with the charges levelled against him before taking any punitive action.

However, the Court did add that both the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority had found the material against the writ petitioner to be unimpeachable.

"...given that the nature of charge against the writ petitioner was that of betraying his employer and providing information to the banned outfit that the appellant's employer was engaged in fighting. It may be reasonably inferred from the departmental orders impugned that it was not reasonably practicable to hold any inquiry."

Against this backdrop, noting that the spirit of Article 311(2)(b) has been complied with and the same was evident both from the order of punishment and the appellate order dealing with the same, the Court remarked thus:

"In such a scenario, particularly with senior police officials having no axe to grind against the appellant having found that the material against the appellant was clinching, the reason for dispensing with the inquiry is self-evident and writ large in the departmental orders impugned without being expressly recorded...It is also possible that the reason for dispensing with the inquiry is self-evident in the order impugned despite it not being expressly spelt out."

Further, the Court also took Judicial notice of the fact that the police obtain confidential information from undisclosed sources and it may neither be prudent nor practicable to expose the identity of the sources or risk such sources to be cross-examined or their identities revealed. With this, the court dismissed the appeal.

Case title - Sanjeeb Ch. Marak Vs. State of Meghalaya & ors.

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 3

Click Here To Read/Download Order