Pipa Yaima Dangshawa Maring vs State Of Manipur

[1] This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the dismissal order dated 23.1.2018 issued by the Under Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur and the order of the Superintendent of Police, Imphal East dated 29.1.2018 striking off the petitioner from the strength of the District Police, Imphal East District.

[2] The case of the petitioner is that he was recruited to the post of Police Constable, Male/Civil, Government of Manipur in the year 2006 and he underwent the basic training which he successfully completed within the stipulated period. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Constable on 23.11.2016. It is stated that the petitioner along with two other persons were arrested by CDO-IW in connection to the alleged explosion of one IED near electric transformer located at Naorem Leikai along the road side of NH-2 occurred on 13.8.2017. According to the petitioner, on that day, he was at his home after returning from his night duty at 6 a.m. and was arrested on the way to the Imphal East CDO, Porompat when he was to report for his evening duty. The petitioner alleged that he was not involved in the said incident, nor had any knowledge about it.

[3] Further case of the petitioner is that on 14.8.2017, the petitioner along with other persons were produced before the Court and were remanded to police custody till 19.8.2017 and further remanded till 24.8.2017. Pursuant to the letter submitted by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Singjamei, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West remanded the petitioner and two others for another period of 15 days in connection with FIR No.252(8)2017.

[4] According to the petitioner, the Under Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur vide order dated 23.1.2018, dismissed the petitioner from service under sub-clause (c) of the proviso to clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police issued an order dated 29.1.2018, thereby striking the name of the petitioner from the strength of the District Police Office, Imphal East District. Challenging the said two orders, the petitioner has filed the writ petition.

[5] The respondents filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the petitioner along with two other co-accused were arrested on 13.8.2017 by the police and remanded to police custody in connection with the explosion of one IED near electric transformer located at Naorem Leikai along the road side of NH-2. During the course of interrogation, the accused persons admitted that they were involved in exploding one IED on 13.8.2017 at around 9.45 a.m. near an electric transformer located at Naorem Leikai, Kakwa, Imphal West along the road side of NH-2. The petitioner admitted that he along with the two others namely Sapam Nanda Singh @ Makar and Thingbaijam Sanjoy Singh were working under the command of one Premkumar @ PK @ Aheibam Angom @ Tomcha from Bashikhong, Imphal East, who is a self- style Major and Chief of Finance of the outlaw valley organization. It is stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that on interrogation, the petitioner and two others also disclosed that they planted the IED under the direction of the said Premkumar and they were planning to explode series of IED at different places of Imphal East and West Districts on the eve of the celebration of Independence Day, 2017 to show their boycott of Independence Day celebration. On their disclosure several articles were recovered.

[6] In the affidavit-in-opposition, it has been stated that the Police Department of Manipur after having meticulous consideration of the facts unearthed during the course of investigation felt that the petitioner being a member of disciplined and law enforcing agency holding responsible post of Head Constable in Commando Unit and associated with the unlawful organization is not expedient to hold inquiry in the interest of the security of the State. Accordingly, a proposal was made to the State Government for taking necessary decision to dismiss the petitioner from service under Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution of India. On receipt of the proposal, the matter was referred to the Committee of Advisors and the Committee of Advisors, after considering all the materials placed before it, decided to recommend dismissal of the petitioner and two others under Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution of India and accordingly, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide the impugned order dated 23.1.2018 and consequently, his name was struck down from the strength of the District Police of Imphal East by an order dated 29.1.2018. Since the orders impugned in the writ petition are passed in accordance with law, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

[7] Assailing the impugned orders, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of dismissal came to be passed without any enquiry and in fact, no departmental enquiry was conducted before issuing the impugned order of dismissal and the same was issued in violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.

[8] The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it was not clear as to how the official respondents came to the conclusion that the petitioner is involved and associated with subversive activities and that in the interest of the security of the State.

[9] The learned counsel next submitted that the dismissal order which is penal in nature and has an adverse and prejudicial stigma against the petitioner and his family members and that the impugned order was passed without giving him an opportunity of being heard to defend himself or to say anything against the charge levelled against him.

[10] The learned counsel then submitted that no charge memo was issued to the petitioner and therefore, the impugned order of dismissal dated 23.1.2018 is vitiated and also it violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and hence, the same is liable to be set aside. In support, the learned counsel placed reliance on the other of this Court dated 27.1.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No.240 of 2017 (Md. Yahiya Khan v. State of Manipur and others).

[11] Per contra, the learned Government counsel submitted that during the course of interrogation, the petitioner himself admitted that he and Sapam Nanda Singh W Makar and Thingbaijam Sanjoy Singh were close associates and were working under the command of Premkumar @ PK @ Aheibam Angom @ Tomcha from BAshikhong, Imphal East, Manipur, who is self-style Major and Chief of Finance of the outlaw valley organization. He would submit that during the course of interrogation, the petitioner further admitted that they were planning to explode serious of IED at different places of Imphal East and West Districts on the eve of the celebration of the Independence Day, 2017. Accordingly, on 13.8.2017, the petitioner was involved in the explosion of one IED at Naorem Leikai.

[12] The learned counsel further submitted that the Police Department after having considered materials received from the course of investigation found that the petitioner being the member of disciplined and law enforcing agency holding responsible post of Head Constable and associated with the unlawful organization is not expedient to hold enquiry in the interest of the security of the State and accordingly, a proposal was sent to the State Government for taking steps to dismiss him under Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution of India. After referring the matter to the Committee of Advisors, the Committee of Advisors recommended dismissal of the petitioner and two others from service and accordingly, issued the dismissal order on 23.1.2018. The learned counsel submits that there is no arbitrariness in the impugned order and the question of affording opportunity to the petitioner does not arise in the instant case on account of the subversive activities of the petitioner and two others. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. To fortify his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the following decisions:

(i) A.K. Kaul and another v. Union of India and another, (1995) 4 SCC 73.

(ii) Union of India and another v. M.M. Sharma, (2011) 4 SCC 293.

[13] This Court considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

[14] The grievance of the petitioner is that the allegations made against him as to the alleged involvement in the bomb blast that took place at Kakwa Naorem Leikai, Lairembi gate waiting shed on 13.8.2017 at about 9.40 a.m. and the subsequent arrest near blast site along with the other two persons are all false and concocted and were made with the malicious motive to harass his life. In fact, the petitioner was arrested at Ragailong AR Transit Camp around 3.15 p.m. by IW/CDO parties, while he was on the way to IE/CDO, Porompat to report for evening duty. Further grievance of the petitioner is that he was not a member of Major and Chief of Finance of the outlawed organization, nor does he assisted or involved in any Criminal activities whether for unlawful organization or other and has no nexus with any kind of unlawful organization.

[15] On the other hand, it is say that of respondents that the petitioner is the active member of Major and Chief of Finance of the outlawed organization and was working under the command of Premkumar and during investigation, which fact was admitted by the petitioner himself during his interrogation. It is stated that during investigation, it was found that the petitioner and two others planted the IED under the direction of the said Premkumar at different places of Imphal East and West on the eve of the celebration of Independence Day, 2017 to demonstrate their boycott of Independence Day celebration.

[16] According to the respondents, during the course of interrogation, the petitioner and two other accused admitted that they were involved in exploding one IED on 13.8.2017 at around 9.45 a.m. near the electric transformer located at Naorem Leikai along with road side of NH-2. Though the said fact has been denied by the petitioner, nothing has been produced by the petitioner to show that on the particular date he was at his home. The petitioner being a member of disciplined service has right to produce the proof to show that he was attended duty on 12.8.2017 night and after finishing his duty he was at his home on 13.8.2017 morning. However, when the police arrested him in connection with the explosion of IED near electric transformer located at Naorem Leikai along road side of NH-2 and during interrogation, the petitioner clearly admitted that he along with the other two accused were working under the command of one Premkumar and they planted IED under the direction of the said Premkumar at different places in Imphal East and West Districts on the eve of Independence Day celebration to demonstrate their boycott of Independence Day, which fact clearly proves his involvement in the plantation and explosion of bomb on 13.8.2017.

[17] It appears that after arrest of the petitioner and other two accused, the SDPO, Singjamei prepared a remand report and filed it before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Imphal West, wherein the said officer has narrated occurrence in detail and in fact, the police recovered the following articles from their possession:

(i) 81 nos. of Gelatin sticks (powder gel)

(ii) 2 nos. of TNT cases (500 gm each) of military grade

(iii) 6 circuits

(iv) 1 remote control device.

In the remand report, the police has also stated that they recovered mobile hand sets from the possession of the petitioners. On production of the accused persons and on satisfying, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate remanded them into judicial custody.

[18] It also appears that the Manipur Police Department, after having consideration of the facts unearthed during the course of investigation felt that the petitioner being the member of the disciplined force and associated with the unlawful organization is not expedient to hold inquiry in the interest of the security of the State and accordingly, sent a proposal to the State Government for dismissal of the petitioner from service.

[19] During the course of arguments, learned Government counsel has produced the original file for perusal of this Court. On a perusal of the file, this Court finds that on 19.8.2017, the Superintendent of Police, Imphal East District sent a letter to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (R-I), Manipur, requesting for moving to State Government of Manipur for dismissing the petitioner from service under Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution of India. The said request of the Superintendent of Police has been forwarded by the DIG, Manipur to the Inspector General of Police (Zone-1), Manipur, who in turn forwarded the same to the ADGP, Manipur. The ADGP, Manipur on 12.9.2017 forwarded the same to the Director General of Police, Manipur for taking further necessary action. On 23.10.2017, the Inspector General of Police (Admn), Manipur, sent letter to the Additional Chief Secretary (home), Government of Manipur requesting to kindly take necessary action for dismissal of the petitioner under Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution of India for his action against the interest of the security of the State at an early date. On a further perusal of the original file, it is seen that the Link Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur placed the said proposal before the Committee of Advisors for consideration for dismissal of the petitioner under Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution of India in the interest of the security of the State. Accordingly, the Committee held the meeting on 25.11.2017 at 11.00 a.m. chaired by the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur and examined the matter and arrived at the following decision:

(a) The Committee after considering all the details placed before it regarding the activities of (i) Shri P. Yaima Dangshawa Maring, Head Constable (H/C) No.0601239 of CDO Unit, Imphal East and (ii) Shri Thingbaijam Sanjoy Singh, Head Constable (H/C) No.0615015 of Singjamei PS, Imphal West having considered the allegations is satisfied that the accused officials have willingly indulged in the activities of an organization declared unlawful which are prejudicial to the security of the State. As such, it is considered not advisable to disclose the allegations against them or to call upon them replies thereto.

(b) The Committee of Advisors, therefore, decided to recommend dismissal of (i) Shri P. Yaima Dangshawa Maring, Head Constable (H/C) No.0601239 of CDO Unit, Imphal East and (ii) Shri Thingbaijam Sanjoy Singh, Head Constable (H/C) No.0615015 of Singjamei PS Imphal West from service under Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution as it is not expedient to hold Department Enquiry in the interest of security of the State as their prejudicial activities are affecting the security of the State.

Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Governor of Manipur and the Governor of Manipur after satisfying was pleased to issue dismissal order dismissing the services of the petitioner from service under Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution of India that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold an enquiry in the case of involvement and association with subversive activities of the petitioner.

[20] The first and foremost submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that provisions of Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution of India has been invoked against the petitioner by the respondent authorities without proper application of mind to the facts and issues involved and the power has been misused by the respondent authorities. He would submit that it is true that the First Information Report has been registered against the petitioner and investigation is going on, however, itll date, no charge sheet was filed. He would submit that the proper enquiry is required, but the respondent authorities illegally and arbitrarily dismissed the petitioner from service by invoking Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution of India. In fact, the respondent authorities have violated the principles of natural justice.

[21] On the other hand, the learned Government counsel contended that being a member of the disciplined police force, the petitioner would not indulge such activities which are prejudicial to the security and sovereignty of the country and in such circumstances, it is not expedient to hold an enquiry in the interest of the security of the State. The learned counsel further submitted that after due consideration of the report of the Committee of Advisors and the Governor having satisfied with the recommendation of the Committee of Advisors, approved the recommendation of the Committee of Advisors and as such the Under Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur issued the impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner in the interest of the State. Therefore, the alleged arbitrariness pleaded by the petitioner is not correct and in fact there is no arbitrary and illegality in issuing the impugned order.

[22] The procedure to be followed for taking action against the Government servants engaged in or associated with subversive activities has been stated in the Official Memorandum of the Government of Manipur, dated 16.8.2008. The relevant portion of the Official Memorandum, dated 16.8.2008 reads thus:

"2. Cases of Government servants engaged in subversive activities can be classified as follows:

A. Cases where there is strong reason leading to the conclusion that a Government servant is engaged in activities like espionage sabotage such as removal of fish plates from railway track, destroying lines or communication in a strategic area of participation in or associated with extremist activities of a subversive nature, endangering the security of the State.

B. Cases where Government servants have been engaged in other objectionable activities of any of the following types and which may affect/endanger the security of the State such as:-

(a) Membership of, or association with any body or organization declared unlawful after it was declared.

(b) Participation in or association with any activity or programme:-

(i) aimed at the subversion of the Constitution; or

(ii) aimed at the organized breach of defiance of the law involving violence; or

(iii) prejudicial to the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India; or

(iv) which promotes on grounds of religion, race, language, caste or community, feelings of enmity or hatred between different sections of the people.

C. Association with organizations engaged in subversive activities in secret organizations which while professing to work in a demographic way, in fact engage in activities to overthrow the present political system, or organizations which have foreign inspiration and liaison for similar objectives."

[23] The Annexure-1 to the Official Memorandum dated 16.8.2008, stipulates the procedure that should be followed before taking action under proviso (c) to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Clause-III deals with the examination of the case and Clause-IV deals with the Committee of Advisers. Sub-clause (b) to Clause IV states as under:

"IV. COMMITTEE OF ADVISERS

(a) ...........

(b) The Committee of Advisors shall first decide

(i) Whether the allegations made against the suspect or any of them should be disclosed to the suspect and be should be given an opportunity to furnish his explanation or

(ii) Whether on grounds of national security or the nature of the allegations made against the suspect it is not advisable or necessary to disclose the allegations against the suspect or to call upon his reply thereto."

[24] In the instant case, as rightly argued by the learned Government counsel, since the allegations levelled against the petitioner and others are serious in nature, it is considered not advisable to disclose the allegations against them or to call for replies thereto from them.

[25] In A.K.Kaul (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

"32. In our opinion, therefore, In a case where the validity of an order passed under clause (c) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) is assailed before a court or a tribunal it is open to the court or the tribunal to examine whether the satisfaction of the President or the Governor is vitiated by mala fides or is based on wholly extraneous or irrelevant grounds and for that purpose the Government is obliged to place before the court or tribunal the relevant material on the basis of which the satisfaction was arrived at subject to a claim of privilege under Sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act to withhold production of a particular document or record. Even in cases where such a privilege is claimed the Government concerned must disclose before the court or tribunal the nature of the activities in which the government employee is said to have indulged in."

[26] In M. M. Sharma (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:

"29. For taking action in due discharge of its responsibility for exercising powers under sub-clause (a) or (b) or (c) it is nowhere provided that the disciplinary authority must provide the reasons indicating application of mind for awarding punishment of dismissal. While no reason for arriving at the satisfaction of the President or the Governor, as the case may be, to dispense with the enquiry in the interest of the security of the State is required to be disclosed in the order, we cannot hold that, in such a situation, the impugned order passed against the respondent should mandatorily disclose the reasons for taking action of dismissal of his service and not any other penalty."

[27] Admittedly, in the case on hand, the respondent State has disclosed before this Court the nature of the activities indulged in by the petitioner. The original file produced before this Court contains the Minutes of Meeting of the Committee of Advisers recommending the dismissal of the petitioner from service and the Governor of Manipur was satisfied for the purpose of exercising his powers under clause (c) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The original file containing the description of activities of the petitioner which warranted his dismissal from service.

[28] Article 311 of the Constitution reads thus:

"311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State.

(1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.

(2) 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.

Provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any Opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed:

Provided further that this clause shall not apply-

(a) Where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or

(b) Where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or

(c) Where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry.

(3) If, in respect of any such person as aforesaid, a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry as is referred to in clause (2), the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank shall be final."

[29] The minimum requirement of natural justice must be satisfied to make the adjudication meaningful and that the said requirement of natural justice in a case of this kind had to be tailored to safeguard public interest which must always outweigh every lesser interest.

[30] Under the Constitution of India dismissal of civil servants must comply with the procedure laid down in Article 311, and Article 310(1) cannot be invoked independently with the object of justifying a contravention of Article 311(2). There Is an exception provided by way of Incorporation of Article 311(2) with sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c). No such inquiry ts required to be conducted for the purposes of dismissal, removal or reduction tn rank of persons when the same relates to dismissal on the ground of conviction or where it is not practicable to hold an inquiry for the reasons to be recorded in writing by that authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or reduce him in rank or where it is not possible to hold an enquiry in the interest of the security of the State. These three exceptions are recognized for dispensing with an inquiry, which is required to be conducted under Article 311 of the Constitution of India when the authority takes a decision for dismissal or removal or reduction in rank in writing.

[31] In the instant case, the records produced before this Court indicate that there are sufficient reasons and materials on record as to why the service of the petitioner was dispensed with in the interest of the security of the State. This Court is also satisfied that the reasons contained in the impugned order as well as the original file produced establish that in the facts of this case holding of an enquiry was rightly dispensed with in the interest of the security of the country. The Committee of Advisers considered the entire record and the allegation against the petitioner and on the basis of the materials available on record, the Committee came to the conclusion that the action could be taken for his dismissal under sub-clause (c) to the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid recommendation of the Committee is very much available in the file produced before this Court by the respondent State. The file also contains notings regarding the approval of dismissal sought and issued by the Hon'ble Governor of Manipur sent through the endorsement of the Hon'ble Chief Minister. This Court finds that there are sufficient and cogent reasons recorded for taking action under Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution of India and also for Imposing the penalty for dispensation of service of the petitioner by way of dismissal from service. In view of the above finding recorded by this Court, the decision in the case of Md. Yahiya Khan, cited by the petitioner is not applicable to his case.

[32] It is apposite to mention that under the Conduct Rules, every Government servant shall at all times maintain absolute discipline and integrity by maintaining devotion to duty and do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant. It is also to be mentioned that discipline Is the backbone of the police force and highest degree of discipline is mandatory for smooth functioning of the force. Being a member of a uniformed force, one is desired and expected to maintain absolute discipline, the foundation on which disciplined and reputed force like CRPF stands.

[33] The settled law in disciplinary proceedings is to the effect that the High Courts, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, do not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless there exist sufficient reasons thereof. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the conscience of the Court, cannot be subjected to judicial review. However, the case on hand involved serious allegation of planting and explosion of bomb by the petitioner and others in association with the unlawful organization cannot be taken in the lighter way and the acts done by the petitioner involves security of the State. That apart, as rightly recommended by the Committee of Advisers and the satisfaction of the Governor of Manipur, the subversive activities committed by the petitioner warrants dismissal from service. Such recommendation and satisfaction arrived at by the respondent State cannot be interfered with by this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

[34] In Union of India v. Owarka Prasad Tiwari, reported in (2006) 10 SCC 388, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when a member of the disciplined force deviates to such an extent from the discipline and behaves in an untoward manner which is not conceived of, it is difficult to hold that the punishment of dismissal as has been imposed is disproportionate and shocking to the judicial conscience.

[35] The petitioner being a member of CRPF, high level of discipline is required to be maintained by him. The petitioner has admittedly failed to maintain the high level discipline and had involved in exploding IED in different places of Imphal East and West Districts on the eve of the celebration of the Independence Day, 2017 under the direction of Premkumar @ PK @ Aheiba Angom @ Tomcha from Bashikhong, Imphal East, who is a self-style Major and Chief of Finance of the outlaw valley organization. Further, the petitioner has failed to act in the interest of the national security, for which he was recruited and therefore, no indulgence should be shown to such a unfit person. As stated supra, since the petitioner has failed to maintain the high level discipline, no mercy can be shown to him.

[36] This Court is of the considered view that in the instant case, the charge against the petitioner being very serious in nature and also in view of the fact that the petitioner was working in a very sensitive post, it cannot be said to be a case of disproportionate punishment to the offence alleged. Moreover, the reasons recorded in the official file against the petitioner for dismissing him from service need not be incorporated in the impugned dismissal order. Thus, on over all analysis of the materials produced, this Court is of the firm view that the order of dismissal service imposed on the petitioner is justified and no interference is called for. Further, this Court also finds no merit in the writ petition and therefore, same is liable to be dismissed.

[37] In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.