Meghalaya High Court upholds dismissal of police officer with terror links without inquiry

The Meghalaya High Court recently upheld the dismissal of a police officer with terror links even though authorities did not disclose reasons for not holding an inquiry [Sanjeeb Ch Marak v. State of Meghalaya & ors]..A Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W Diengdoh held in its order,"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. Some latitude has to be given to the police authorities especially in a scenario where no case of malice in fact is made out.".The High Court was hearing an appeal in a case where a police officer was dismissed from service based on a confidential report, without an inquiry being conducted as is required under Article 311 of the Constitution. The dismissal was upheld by the appellate authority and a single-judge of the High Court. Article 311(2) of the Constitution acts as a safety-net for government servants, by mandating that any dismissal from service or reduction of rank can only be done after an inquiry in which the accused has been informed of the charges levelled against them and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The proviso to this Article states that an inquiry can be dispensed with:a) if the conduct of the officer has led to his conviction on a criminal charge;b) if the authority is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry;c) where the President or the Governor is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold such inquiry..Before the High Court, counsel for the appellant police officer argued that dismissal from service can only take place on conviction by a criminal court, and that any reasons for not holding an inquiry towards the same should be recorded by the relevant authority in writing. This mandatory inquiry cannot be dispensed with and thus the dismissal orders have no legs to stand on, it was submitted. It was further argued that dismissal on security grounds can only be on the satisfaction of the President or Governor, which was absent in this case..The Court noted that the appellant had passed on information pertaining to police operations and movements to a banned and extremist outfit by the name of Garo National Liberation Army. Further, at the time of the confidential report, there was a spurt in violence and activities undertaken by the Garo National Liberation Army, in which several police personnel lost their lives.Even though it conceded that the dismissal order did not explicitly give reasons for not giving the accused a chance to defend himself in an inquiry, the Court noted,"Judicial notice must be taken 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. 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.".The Bench concluded with a word of caution. While acknowledging that when the law requires a certain thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in such manner or not at all, the Court held that no adjudication is made without reference to the context and the surrounding circumstances."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," it stated.In this light, it was held that the mandate of Article 311(2) "may be seen to have been complied with.".Advocate KC Gautam appeared for the appellant. Additional Advocate General B Bhattacharjee and Advocate ZE Nongkynrih represented the State..[Read judgment]