High Court of Meghalaya
Santosh Chakma vs . Union Of India & Ors. on 6 December, 2021Serial No. 03 HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Regular List AT SHILLONG
WA No. 17 of 2021
Date of order: 06.12.2021
Santosh Chakma Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjib Banerjee, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Ms. L. Khiangte, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Dr. N. Mozika, ASG
i) Whether approved for Yes/No
reporting in Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble, the Chief Justice) (Oral)
This utterly unmeritorious appeal is by a person who was enrolled as
a Nursing Assistant in the Assam Rifles against a vacancy of the Arunachal
Pradesh State in course of the recruitment conducted at Kohima in June and
July of 2013.
2. However, when the appellant reported at the Assam Rifles Training
Centre and School, the documents produced by him with respect to his
domicile referred to the State of Mizoram. By a notice dated June 14, 2014,
the appellant was directed to show cause why he should not be summarily
dismissed from service on the ground of furnishing false and incorrect
information at the time of his appointment and wrongfully usurping a seat
reserved for a candidate domiciled in Arunachal Pradesh.
3. By an order dated July 18, 2014, the appellant was dismissed from
service upon the appellant apparently being unable to provide any good
reason in response to the show-cause notice and it being evident that the
appellant hailed from Mizoram and was a permanent resident in such State.
There is no dispute that the appellant is a permanent resident of Mizoram.
4. Two grounds were urged by the appellant before the Single Bench:
that there may have been some clerical omission on the part of the appellant
Page 1 of 3
in course of the appellant submitting his application form which, ordinarily,
should not result in an order of dismissal; and, that the order of dismissal
was issued by a Brigadier who had no authority to terminate the appellant’s
services.
5. At the outset, it must be appreciated that the termination of the
services of an employee or the dismissal following any disciplinary
proceedings stand on a completely different footing than a summary
termination or dismissal from service upon it being discovered that the
concerned person was not eligible to be employed or the employment
offered was on account of any misstatement or incorrect information made
or furnished by such person.
6. In the present case, the appellant was offered the position on the
mistaken impression of the employer that the appellant was a permanent
resident of the State of Arunachal Pradesh. It appears that the appellant had
undertaken his studies in an institution in Arunachal Pradesh, but there can
be no denying that the appellant is a permanent resident of the State of
Mizoram. It is undeniable that the appellant was not eligible to be offered
the post and it was because of the erroneous reference to the appellant being
a permanent resident of Arunachal Pradesh as entered in column 3 of the
application form filed by the appellant, that the employer was misled into
believing that the appellant was entitled to be appointed to the post reserved
for a person hailing from Arunachal Pradesh.
7. As the show-cause notice June 14, 2014 specified, upon the appellant
reporting to the training school it was discovered that he was a permanent
resident of Mizoram. The employer also made inquiries and obtained a
certificate from the village head to the effect that the appellant was a
permanent resident of the relevant village in Mizoram. In the light of such
material and it being the admitted position that the entry in column 3 in the
application form was erroneous, there was no question of interfering with
the order of dismissal that the appellant suffered. The second ground urged
by the appellant has also been adequately dealt with in the impugned
judgment dated July 11, 2019. As per such judgment, the order was passed
by a Brigadier holding charge as a Commandant Officer and it was issued
from the Office of the Deputy Inspector General Assam Rifles, Training
Page 2 of 3
Centre and School. This was found to be in compliance with Section 11 (2)
of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006.
8. Since the appellant, whether deliberately or otherwise, had furnished
information that was ultimately discovered to be incorrect and it being
evident that the appellant was erroneously offered a position that was
reserved for a person domiciled in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, the
appellant’s occupation of the position was untenable. Accordingly, the
appeal fails and the order impugned is affirmed.
9. WA No. 17 of 2021 is dismissed.
10. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
(W. Diengdoh) (Sanjib Banerjee)
Judge Chief Justice
Meghalaya
06.12.2021
“Sylvana PS”
Page 3 of 3
Comments