Read Time: 07 minutes
The appellant, a rifleman, had fired three shots at his fellow rifleman causing injuries his right knee, neck, and lower abdomen and was thus dismissed from service
The High Court of Meghalaya has upheld the dismissal of a Rifleman from Assam Rifles, who was involved in a shooting incident against a fellow staff member.
A division bench, comprising the Chief Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice W. Diengdoh, delivered the verdict emphasising the importance of maintaining discipline within the force and the potential danger of reinstating the appellant. The court noted “reinstating an employee with unsound mind in a disciplined force is dangerous not only to the Force, but also to the society at large.”
The court made the observation in response to a writ appeal filed by the Sashikant Pandey (appellant), challenging the order dated March 5, 2024, by a learned Single Judge, which had dismissed his petition for reinstatement as devoid of merits.
The appellant was enrolled as a Rifleman in Assam Rifles (respondents). On September 11, 2015, he was accused of firing three shots from his service weapon at a fellow Rifleman, Deva Nand, causing injuries to his right knee, neck, and lower abdomen. Pandey was also charged with leaving his guard post without orders from his superior officer. Following the incident, an FIR was registered, and Pandey was arrested and placed in police custody.
The Assam Rifles Court conducted a trial where 19 witnesses, including three eyewitnesses, testified. Pandey pleaded not guilty, but the court found him guilty and sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment in civil custody, in addition to dismissing him from service. The sentence and dismissal were confirmed by the Inspector General of Assam Rifles (North) on September 11, 2018. Pandey appealed the decision to the Director of Assam Rifles, citing the disproportionate nature of the punishment and delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, his appeal was rejected on March 22, 2022, due to the delay and lack of merit. Consequently, Pandey filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was also dismissed.
The court observed that Pandey's past record included several instances of misconduct, resulting in rigorous imprisonment and fines on three prior occasions. The court further noted that the shooting incident had a direct impact on employment and was committed within the premises of Assam Rifles.
Referencing the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ‘Mukesh Kumar Raigar Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others’, the court noted that “it is absolutely mandatory on the part of the personnel in a disciplined force to maintain discipline of the highest order.”
Furthermore, the court highlighted that Pandey had taken the plea of insanity for the first time before the High Court. It referred to Section 121 of the Assam Rifles Act, which deals with procedures for individuals with lunacy or insanity, claiming procedural lapses by the respondents during the enquiry. The court dismissed this plea, noting that it had not been raised before the General Assam Rifles Court (GARC) or the learned Single Judge. The appellate stage was not deemed appropriate for rendering a finding on this aspect.
“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,” the court remarked.
The court concluded that the order of the learned Single Judge was perfectly valid and warranted no interference. As a result, the writ appeal was dismissed.
Cause Title: Sashikant Pandey v Union of India [W.A.No.16/2024]
Please Login or Register
