Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 299 (MEG)

BNC/947 Shri Joyous Dura v. State of Meghalaya

2022-11-14

H.S.THANGKHIEW

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The writ petitioner herein who was serving as a Constable at the 1st Battalion of the Meghalaya Police (MLP) was initially suspended for producing an alleged fake medical certificate, for which a criminal case has been instituted and the same is pending. 2. It appears that in the Departmental Proceedings that was taken up, the petitioner was then removed from service w.e.f. 12.01.2016 on the orders of the Disciplinary authorities based on the enquiry report. An appeal was thereafter preferred by the writ petitioner, which also came to be dismissed by order dated 20.06.2016. 3. Mr. H.R. Nath, learned counsel submits that the petitioner is aggrieved with the impugned order, inasmuch as, the same had been passed without affording the writ petitioner adequate opportunity to defend himself, and further submits that the materials that were relied upon, were not supplied to him. He therefore, submits that the proceedings being vitiated and in violation of the principles of natural justice are liable to be interfered with by this Court. 4. Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned AAG assisted by Ms. A. Thungwa, learned GA for the respondents, however has refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and has contended that ample opportunity had been given to the writ petitioner. He further submits that as the case hinges upon the fake medical certificate, which had been produced by the petitioner himself, there can be no question of non-supply of the questioned document. The attention of this Court has been drawn to the show cause reply which has been submitted by the petitioner, and it has been submitted that the instant case is a clear case of admission and the same does not deserve any consideration by this Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered the submissions and also perused the materials that have been placed on record. It appears that the Departmental Proceedings were drawn up against the writ petitioner as per the Statement of Charges which is reproduced hereinbelow:- 'STATEMENT OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAISNT BNC/947 JOYOUS DURA OF 6TH BATTALION MEGHALAYA POLICE ? BNC/947 Joyous Dura of this unit was misleading this office by producing Medical Certificates of T.B. leave periodically w.e.f. 22/12/2013 to 22/12/2014 issued from T.B. Hospital, Shillong but which were denied by the District Tuberculosis Officer East Khasi Hills, Shillong to have been issued from that office vide letter no. BNC/947 Joyous Dura of this unit was misleading this office by producing Medical Certificates of T.B. leave periodically w.e.f. 22/12/2013 to 22/12/2014 issued from T.B. Hospital, Shillong but which were denied by the District Tuberculosis Officer East Khasi Hills, Shillong to have been issued from that office vide letter no. DHS (RNTCP)/EKH/2015/605 date 14/01/2015. His action amounts to gross misconduct unbecoming of member of a discipline force. (Shri. J. Rymmai, IPS.) Commandant 6th Battalion Meghalaya Police Meghalaya, Shillong.' 6. A further perusal of the records reflects that the petitioner initially on 05.02.2015 had been asked to show cause within 10 days, who however failed to reply to the same, to which the disciplinary authorities allowed further time by way of a notice dated 23.03.2015. Thereafter, a show cause was filed by the writ petitioner, wherein he denied the charges and prayed for reinstatement into service. 7. Thereafter, the Departmental Proceedings commenced, and based on the findings submitted by the Enquiry Officer, a 2nd show cause notice was issued to the writ petitioner, as to why major penalties should not be inflicted for the act of omission and commission in producing a fake medical certificate for availing leave. 8. The 2nd show cause reply was then filed by writ petitioner which is annexed at Annexure-VII to the writ petition, wherein he has admitted that he was not suffering from any disease, but since the department had granted him leave, he maintained his silence till the medical leave expired. 9. The impugned order dated 12.01.2016 was then passed removing the writ petitioner from service, followed by the appeal and order dated 20.06.2016 rejecting the same. On consideration of the facts as placed and the materials on record, the contention of the writ petitioner that he has not been afforded adequate opportunity, or that materials were not supplied to him does not appear to be correct. This is because, in both the show causes filed, there is no whisper about denial of opportunity and in fact by the 2nd show cause the petitioner has admitted his connivance in the entire episode. 10. A writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution does not sit in appeal over the findings of the disciplinary authorities in such cases but the only exercise is to discern if there were any irregularities in the proceedings which need to be corrected. 11. 10. A writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution does not sit in appeal over the findings of the disciplinary authorities in such cases but the only exercise is to discern if there were any irregularities in the proceedings which need to be corrected. 11. In the instant case though pleaded, no irregularity is reflected from the records, moreover, the petitioner who is supposed to be a member of a disciplined force is well aware of the consequences of such actions. 12. In this view of the matter, there being no merit in the instant case, the same is dismissed.