Meghalaya High Court
Shri. Santosh Chakma vs . Union Of India &Ors. on 11 July, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 MEG 76, 2019 LAB IC (NOC) 214 (MEG)
Author: H.S. Thangkhiew
Bench: H.S. Thangkhiew
1
Serial No. 18
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 209 of 2018
Date of Decision: 11.07.2019
Shri. Santosh Chakma Vs. Union of India &Ors.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) : Ms. L. Khiangte, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K. Paul, CGC.
i) Whether approved for reporting in No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: No
ORAL
1. The writ petitioner being aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 18 th July, 2014 is before this Court assailing the same on the grounds that firstly, the dismissal order was passed by an authority not competent to pass the same, and secondly, that the alleged accusation of furnishing false information is not correct and infact, the petitioner was a resident of Arunachal Pradesh, and due to some clerical omissions was punished with dismissal from service.
2. I have heard learned counsels for the parties.
3. Ms. L. Khiangte, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the writ petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 14 th June, 2014 on the allegation of furnishing false information as to the permanent address, at the time of recruitment for the post of Nursing Assistant into the Assam Rifles. She submits that the petitioner had filed a reply to the same 2 stating the reason therein that the address given in the application form was of Arunachal Pradesh, where the petitioner had studied and was residing there due to the remoteness and bad connectivity of his native village namely, Silsury, under Mamit District of Mizoram. She further submits that after the show cause notice was replied, the writ petitioner was served with the impugned order of dismissal dated 18th July, 2014 on the ground of submitting false information. Learned counsel then also contends that the impugned order was issued by an authority not competent to issue the same, as per Section 11 (2) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006. To buttress her submissions, she has placed reliance on the judgment and order dated 24.07.2015 in WP(C) No. 169 of 2014 passed by this Court in the case of Shri. Karam Singh v. Union of India & Ors. She lastly submits that the dismissal being arbitrary for non-consideration that alleged false information were mere clerical omissions and passed by an authority not competent to do so, the impugned order was liable to be set aside and quashed.
4. Mr. K. Paul, learned CGC appearing on behalf of the respondents on the first point submits that there is nothing illegal in the impugned order, inasmuch as Section 11 (2) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 prescribes that "An officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector-General may dismiss or remove from the service any person under his command other than an officer or a subordinate officer of such rank or the ranks as may be prescribed". He submits that in the instant case, the authority who issued the dismissal order was a Brigadier and the said order was issued from the Office of the Deputy Inspector General Assam Rifles, Training Centre and School, P.O. Dimapur (Nagaland) and as such, there is no infirmity with regard to the impugned order of dismissal.
5. Replying to the other submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned CGC has drawn attention of this Court to the additional affidavit filed on 14.06.2019, wherein the recruitment form of the petitioner has been annexed. He submits that the petitioner's permanent home address at Column 3 of the form categorically stated that his 3 permanent home address is at Diyun, Changlang, Arunachal Pradesh whereas as per the show cause, it was disclosed that his permanent native place is in Mizoram. As such, he submits, the particulars put down in the recruitment form being false, the writ petitioner was accordingly proceeded under Rule 22 Chapter-IV of the Assam Rifles Rules, which provides that:
"22. Termination of service on grounds of furnishing false or incorrect information at the time of appointment or enrollment. - The Central Government or the authority as the case may be, as specified in rule 17, may terminate the service of a person subject to the Act on grounds of furnishing false or incorrect information at the time of appointment or enrollment of that person in the service.
Provided that action under this rule shall not be taken without the competent authority giving the person concerned a show cause notice giving one month time to urge grounds, if any, in his defence, and his explanation being found unsatisfactory."
He finally submits that there being no infirmity with the dismissal order and the dismissal order being in accordance with the Acts and Rules of the Assam Rifles, there is no case made out for interference by this Court and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. I have given my due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and also examined the materials on record. The petitioner it seems had applied for enrollment in the Assam Rifles for the post of Nursing Assistant against a quota reserved for Arunachal Pradesh. However, in the show cause reply filed by which is not refuted by the petitioner, his permanent address has been disclosed as Silsury village, under Mamit District of Mizoram. This admission by the petitioner would render him ineligible for selection to the said post which was against a vacancy allotted to Arunachal Pradesh. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that though, the petitioner is originally from Mizoram, he was for all purposes a resident of Arunachal Pradesh due to his education there, will not suffice to make out a case for his re- instatement into service as the vacancy is for the permanent residents of Arunachal Pradesh.
47. On the second aspect that is, the contention that the dismissal order was passed by an authority not competent, Section 11 (2) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, the same on examination is incorrect, inasmuch as on the face of the record, it is apparent that the order was passed by a Brigadier holding charge as CO (Commanding Officer) and the order was issued from the Office of the Deputy Inspector General Assam Rifles, Training Centre and School, P.O. Dimapur (Nagaland) which is in accordance with the Assam Rifles Act. Further, a perusal of Rule 22 shows that the punishment as meted out to the petitioner was as prescribed by the Rules. The decision as relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is therefore of no assistance on the facts of the present case. As such, there being no infirmity with the procedure adopted, and the dismissal order being in accordance with law, there is no merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Judge Meghalaya 11.07.2019 "D. Nary, PS"