Manipur High Court Sets Aside Dismissal of Police Sub-Inspector, Cites Procedural Lapses Under Article 311(2)(c)
Authored By Kiran Raj
The Manipur High Court, in a judgment delivered on November 18, 2024, set aside the dismissal of Shri Laishram Sushil Singh, a Sub-Inspector in the Manipur Police, under Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Siddharth Mridul, Justice Ahanthem Bimol Singh, and Justice Golmei Gaiphulshillu Kabui held that the disciplinary authority failed to provide adequate material to justify dispensing with a departmental inquiry in the interest of state security. The Bench reinstated Singh into service, deeming the dismissal order procedurally invalid and unconstitutional.
The appellant, Shri Laishram Sushil Singh, was dismissed from service via an order dated July 13, 2017, issued under Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution, citing his alleged involvement in activities prejudicial to the security of the state. This extraordinary provision permits dismissal without an inquiry when the Governor or President is satisfied that such an inquiry is not expedient in the interest of state security.
The disciplinary authority's recommendation relied on a confidential police report accusing Singh of maintaining links with the banned People's Liberation Army/Revolutionary People's Front (PLA/RPF). The petitioner was also implicated in aiding insurgent activities and passing sensitive information to the group. However, the High Court noted procedural lapses in arriving at the decision to invoke Article 311(2)(c).
The High Court scrutinized the dismissal process and the materials presented. The Bench remarked, “The Governor’s approval by merely stating ‘may be approved’ without a substantive satisfaction on the recommendation of the disciplinary authority contravenes the Constitutional requirement under Article 311(2)(c).”
The Court found that the recommendation to dismiss Singh was primarily based on an internally generated police report and lacked corroborative evidence. It observed, “The grounds for resorting to this extreme measure were solely based on allegations derived from the investigating authority’s report, without apparent efforts to substantiate these allegations through objective and reliable material.”
The Court held that the satisfaction required under Article 311(2)(c) must be based on cogent reasons and supported by evidence. The Bench stated, “Recording of reasons is not a mere formality but a Constitutional safeguard ensuring that the powers conferred under Article 311(2)(c) are exercised judiciously.”
In its judgment, the Court held that the disciplinary authority and the Governor had failed to adhere to the procedural and substantive requirements of Article 311(2)(c). It reinstated the petitioner, directing that his period of dismissal be treated as time served for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The Court also allowed for the continuation of criminal investigations against the petitioner as deemed necessary.
Case Title: State of Manipur & Ors. vs. Shri Laishram Sushil Singh
Case Number: Writ Appeal No. 18 of 2022
Bench: Chief Justice Siddharth Mridul, Justice Ahanthem Bimol Singh, and Justice Golmei Gaiphulshillu Kabui
[Read/Download order]
