Meghalaya High Court: In an intra-Court appeal against a decision of the Single Judge, wherein the appellant’s petition seeking reinstatement of service was dismissed, the Division Bench of S. Vaidyanathan, CJ. and W. Diengdoh, J. dismissed the appeal and upheld the impugned decision.
Factual Matrix
The appellant was enrolled in the Assam Rifles as Rifleman (Barber). The case against the appellant was that he was missing from his service with his weapon 5.56mm INSAS Rifle and went to his barrack and fired three rounds on co-employee and caused injury in his right knee, right side of neck and lower abdomen. He was charged under Section 55 and of the for firing shots from his service weapon against his fellow staff and leaving his guard without orders from his Superior Officer. A First Information Report was registered under Section of the (‘IPC’). The Trial Court found him guilty of charges and sentenced him to undergo three years of imprisonment and ordered for his dismissal from service. The Inspector General, Assam Rifles (North) confirmed the order of dismissal on 11-09-2018. The appellant’s appeal before the Director of Assam Rifles under Section of r/w Rule 178 of Assam Rifles Rules, 2010 was rejected on the ground of delay and for being devoid of merits.
The appellant preferred a petition before the Court, stating that the punishment imposed on him was shockingly disproportionate to the offence alleged and that the delay in preferring the appeal occurred due to Covid-19.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the appellant had indulged in such type of misconducts earlier, on three occasions and was awarded different punishments. The Court said that about nineteen witnesses were examined, of whom, there were three eyewitnesses and that there were no procedural lapses on the part of the respondents in conducting the enquiry. Regarding the appellant’s contention that that the incident took place during his duty shift, the Assam Rifles Court had not jurisdiction to try the case under Section 56 of the Assam Rifles Act, the Court refused to accept the said stance and said that the offence was committed in connection with the employment, which is construed to be a continuous cause of action and the misconduct had impact on the employment and the occurrence had happened within the premises of the respondents.
Further, the Court relied on Mukesh Kumar Raigar v. Union of India, wherein it was laid down that, it is absolutely mandatory on the part of the personnel in a disciplined force to maintain discipline of the highest order.
Regarding the appellant’s reference to Section 121 of the Assam Rifles Act, which deals with the procedures to be adopted in respect of a person with lunacy or insanity to establish that there was a procedural lapse on the part of the respondents in conducting enquiry, the Court said that the said plea was not taken neither before the General Assam Rifles Court (GARC) nor before the Single Judge. Hence, the Court said that the stage of appeal, the Court could not render any finding on this aspect. The Court added that even if it is taken that the appellant is a lunatic, reinstating an employee with unsound mind in a disciplined force is dangerous not only to the Force, but also to the society at large. Thus, the Court held that the Single Judge’s order was valid and warranted no interference by the Court.
[Sashikant Pandey v. Union of India, Writ Appeal No.16/2024, Decided on: 28-06-2024]
*Judgment Authored by: Chief Justice S. Vaidyanathan
Buy Penal Code, 1860
The post appeared first on .