Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 199 (MEG)

Rakban G. Momin v. State of Meghalaya

2019-10-15

H.S.THANGKHIEW

body2019
JUDGMENT : H.S. Thangkhiew, J. 1. These two matters being similar in nature will be dealt and disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner WP(C) 216 of 2019 Shri Rakban G. Momin was appointed as Lecturer in the Department of Garo, Mendipathar College, East Garo Hills, Meghalaya w.e.f. 27.07.2010. 3. The petitioner in WP(C) 217 of 2019 Shri Thangkan Ch. Marak was appointed as Lecturer in the Department of Philosophy, Mendipathar College, East Garo Hills, Meghalaya w.e.f. 21.02.2012. 4. On 10.4.2019, a complaint was lodged before the District Election Officer, and Assistant Returning Officer, North Garo Hills District, Resubelpara by the President of the Nationalist Peoples Party, Youth Front against the petitioners alleging therein that the petitioners had made derogatory comments on social media against the NPP candidate and that the petitioners were directly involved and had encouraged the voters to vote for the Congress Party. Thereafter, the OC Mendipathar PS registered the said complaint as Mendipathar P.S. Case No. 16 (04) 2019 u/s. 153A, 500, 501, 505(c) IPC on 14.4.2019 and notice were issued to the petitioners to appear before the OC Mendipathar on 17.04.2019 in connection with the aforesaid complaint. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent No. 5 (Governing Body Mendipathar College) without citing any reason directed the petitioners to take casual leave w.e.f. 18.4.2019 to 30.4.2019 and thereafter on expiry of the leave did not allow them to resume their duties and directed the petitioners to await the proceedings of the meeting of the Governing Body of the college. On 10.05.2019, the respondent No. 5 resolved in the Governing Body meeting that the petitioners cannot be placed in the teaching course unless they were cleared of the complaint or on orders of the Court. Being highly aggrieved the petitioners are before this Court, contending that they have been discharged from service without being issued any semblance of a show cause which is in violation of principles of natural justice, the complaint filed against the petitioners is not maintainable in law, the discharge, termination from service is simply based on the misconceived complaint and further the comments made were without any intention of causing incitement, communal hatred or to defame any individual, group or political party. As such, the petitioners have prayed that the impugned resolution be quashed and set aside and the Respondent No. 5 be directed be allow the petitioners to resume their services. 6. Dr N. Mozika, learned senior assisted by Ms. S.A. Shallam, submits that the entire action of the respondent No. 5 in ousting the petitioners from service is blatantly illegal, inasmuch as, no semblance of show cause was ever issued nor were they heard in any manner before the impugned resolution was passed. He further submits that the complaint so lodged is also not maintainable in law as Section 153A, 500, 501 and 505(1)(c) IPC are non-cognizable offences wherein proceedings under these Sections require prior sanction from Central and State Government as prescribed under Section 196 Cr.P.C.. Counsel also submits that the petitioners have been not allowed to resume their duties w.e.f. 4.5.2019, which in effect amounts to putting the petitioners either in suspension or terminating the services without any show cause or any opportunity of hearing being afforded. As such he prays that the actions of the respondents being highly illegal and unwarranted is liable to be interfered with by this Court and directions be issued to the respondent No. 5 to take back the petitioners into service. 7. Mr. R. Kar, learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that the fact that the petitioners have been kept out of service since the expiry of their casual leave cannot be denied. He however submits that the impugned resolution is just the initial process, inasmuch as, by the same resolution it has been resolved that the Principal/Secretary serve show cause notice on the petitioners. He also submits that the petitioners failed to attend the training programme fixed by the Election Department for which they have also been asked to show cause. He lastly submits that the petitioners being employees of the college are duty bound to adhere to the rules and directions of the college authorities, and the petitioners should reply to the show cause which has been sent to them. He lastly submits that the petitioners being employees of the college are duty bound to adhere to the rules and directions of the college authorities, and the petitioners should reply to the show cause which has been sent to them. Learned counsel draws the attention of this Court to the show cause notice dated 11.6.2019 issued to the petitioners for violation of election conduct by being absent for training and also letter dated 23.9.2019 seeking approval for implementation of the impugned resolution and also the decision of the Governing Body that an amicable solution as proposed by this court's order dated 22.7.2019 to await the decision of this Court itself. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the resolutions and letters as placed on record. The basic issue that the petitioners have been kept out of service without any semblance of any proceedings in accordance with law is undisputed and a glaring fact. Vide the impugned resolution, the respondent No. 5 it seems have given a total go by to the basic requirements of law in such matters. Notwithstanding the fact that apparently the offences as charged are non-cognizable and the alleged non-attendance from training are actionable in their own areas of jurisdiction, the ousting from service of the petitioners which has been done in flagrant violation of the set principles as provided in law and against the principles of natural justice is clearly unsustainable. 9. As it appears from the records, the respondent No. 5 has not shown any inclination to proceed as per law and in fact has tried to put up technicalities which have no relevance to the matter in issue. Without adverting to any other issues as to whether the social media (Face Book) post were derogatory or defamatory and, whether the offence is cognizable in law, or whether the Respondent No. 5 is the competent authority to initiate proceedings for alleged violation of the Election Model Code, the basic fact that the petitioners have been ousted from service in violation of the principles of natural justice and their fundamental and legal rights infringed upon, calls for interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Accordingly, the impugned resolution No. 8 dated 10.05.2019 is set aside and quashed and the instant writ petitions are allowed. 10. Accordingly, the impugned resolution No. 8 dated 10.05.2019 is set aside and quashed and the instant writ petitions are allowed. The respondent No. 5 is directed to take back the petitioners into service and also to release the entire back wages as payable forthwith. 11. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.