Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 17 (MEG)

Teiborlang Syiemlieh v. State of Meghalaya

2014-02-20

S.R.SEN

body2014
Judgment S.R. Sen, J. The brief facts of the petitioner's case in nut shell is that, the writ petitioner was temporarily officiating in the Respondent's Office since 25/07/2009 in the post of warder and subsequently being impressed by the excellent service record of the Petitioner, the Respondent No. 2 vide office letter No. PRI. 54/2009/Vol-I/864 dated 03/02/2012 was pleased to regularize the post held by the petitioner. That on 21/09/2012 the Petitioner's service was illegally terminated for the reason best known to the Respondent and that too without affording any opportunity of hearing or show cause. That, subsequently once again the Respondent after illegally removing the Petitioner from his permanent post issued a order dated 11/10/2012 directing the Petitioner to rejoin his duty only on officiating temporary capacity. Being aggrieved by the impugned letter of termination dated 21/09/2012 and subsequent order dated 11/08/2012, the Petitioner is before your Lordship with the present writ petition. Mr. R Gurung, the learned counsel appeared for on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner was initially appointed as Warder on officiating basis w.e.f. 25.07.09 and thereafter, his service has been regularized w.e.f. 03.02.12 on probation for a period of 1(one) year. Unfortunately, vide order dated 21.09.12 he has been terminated from service w.e.f. 21.09.12. The learned counsel further contended that before termination, the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing or to defend himself against the charges levelled against him. Hence this instant petition. 2. In reply Mr. S. Sen Gupta, the learned counsel for the State respondent has submitted that, the petitioner was involved in misappropriation and forgery of Government money, as such compelled the authority/respondent to terminate him from service. However, the learned State counsel could not answer why no show cause notice has been issued and why the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard before termination. 3. After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel at bar and after perusal of the case record placed before me, it appears that the petitioner was initially appointed as Warder on officiating basis w.e.f. 25.07.09 and his service has been regularized w.e.f. 03.02.12 and was placed under probation for a period of 1(one) year. I have also carefully gone through the impugned termination order dated 21.09.12. I have also carefully gone through the impugned termination order dated 21.09.12. On reading the impugned termination order I find that, no ground has been specified or no reason has been placed on the termination order and further stated that he has just been terminated. The Assam Police Manual Part-III Rule-66 Sub-Rule-(2) & (3) specified about Major penalties and Minor penalties. In this instant case it is an admitted fact that, the respondent authority has totally ignored the Police Manual. 4. It is also an admitted fact that, no show cause has been issued to the petitioner nor the he has been given an opportunity to be heard. It is a settled principle of law that, even a condemned offender cannot be push behind bar unheard. The Constitution has granted a liberty to each and every citizen that he or she should be heard before taking any action for any alleged charges. In this instant case, I find that the respondent authority has totally ignored the above mentioned liberty granted by the Constitution of India which is unacceptable and unappreciable. Further it appears that, the Director General of Police (Prisons), Meghalaya has just removed the petitioner as if he is removing his maid servant from service but he failed to understand that the petitioner is also a Government employee whatever the post he may hold. 5. Article-311 (Clause-2) of the Constitution of India states that, "No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges", hence, I find that the respondent authority did not adhere to the above Constitutional provision. 6. Therefore, I find that the impugned termination order dated 21.09.12 is bad in law and without any procedure, hence, it is set aside with a direction to the respondent authority to reinstate the petitioner forthwith and thereafter, if he feels that he has really misappropriated the Government money, then an effective inquiry may be conducted afresh against him furnishing documents for his defence and he also to be given an opportunity to be heard and to apply judicious mind and not to take any personal vendetta. With these observations and directions, this instant petition is allowed and the matter stands disposed of.