Reinstating Employee With Unsound Mind Is Dangerous: Meghalaya HC Upholds Dismissal Of Assam Rifles Personnel
|The Meghalaya High Court upheld the dismissal from service of an armed forces personnel observing that reinstating an employee with an unsound mind in a disciplined force was dangerous.
The bench dismissed the appeal of a Rifleman (appellant/employee) enrolled in the Assam Rifles seeking reinstatement into services. The employee was dismissed from service after the Assam Rifles Court found him guilty of charges under Sections 55 and 23(d) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 (the Act) and Section 307 of the IPC.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice W. Diengdoh observed, “Even if it is taken that the appellant is a lunatic, reinstating an employee with unsound mind in a disciplined force is dangerous not only to the Force, but also to the society at large. It is pertinent to mention here that already the appellant fired three rounds against a co-employee, who, though sustained severe injuries, escaped from the clutches of Yama Dharmaraja and we do not want to be a party to enable the appellant to use the balance bullets against other fellow personnel so as to accomplish his mission/task in the years to come.”
Advocate B. Deb represented the appellant, while DSGI N. Mozika appeared for the respondents.
The appellant was arrested for shooting another Rifleman and was placed under police custody. The charges against him included firing shots from his service weapon against his fellow staff member and leaving his guard post without orders from his Superior Officer.
An appeal filed by the employee to the Director of Assam Rifles under Section 139(2) of the Act read with Rule 178 of Assam Rifles Rules, 2010 (the Rules) was rejected. Subsequently, the appellant approached the High Court, arguing that the punishment was “shockingly disproportionate to the offence alleged.”
The Court perused the ‘past record’ of the appellant and noted that he had indulged in such type of misconduct on three other occasions as well. Therefore, the court explained that the appellant’s submission could not be accepted because “the offence had been committed in connection with the employment, which is construed to be a continuous cause of action and the misconduct had impact on the employment and the occurrence had happened within the premises of the respondents.”
The Bench also pointed out that the appeal was preferred by the employee under Section 121 of the Act, which deals with the procedures to be adopted in respect of a person with lunacy/insanity to establish that there was a procedural lapse on the part of the authority in conducting an enquiry.
Consequently, the Court clarified, “First of all, the said plea had been taken neither before the General Assam Rifles Court (GARC) nor before the learned Single Judge and it has been taken for the first time before this Court. Therefore, we, at the appellate stage, cannot render any finding on this aspect.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Sashikant Pandey v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:MLHC:583-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates B. Deb and N.I. Choudhury
Respondents: DSGI N. Mozika; Advocate A. Pradhan