SC: ‘Abandonment of Service is Not Voluntary Retirement’, Denying SBI Clerk Pension Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Stranger Affected by an Interim Order is Entitled to be Impleaded in Writ Proceedings  ||  Supreme Court: Courts Cannot Replace an Authority’s Discretion, and Sets Aside Direction to Governor  ||  SC: Title Suit Hit by Constructive Res Judicata if Omitted in Prior Injunction Suit Disputing Title  ||  SC Clarifies Whether a Co-Operative Society Can Act as a Resolution Applicant under the IBC  ||  Chhattisgarh High Court: Innocent Litigants Should Not be Penalized For Lapses by Their Lawyers  ||  Delhi High Court: Marriage With the Victim Cannot Absolve an Accused of Rape under POCSO  ||  J&K&L HC: Acquisition Lapses if 80% Compensation is Unpaid Before Possession under Section 17A  ||  Delhi HC: Policy Number is Not Mandatory For LIC Details under RTI, But Basic Details are Required  ||  SC: Courts Must Curb Unlicensed Money Lenders; Probes Need Not Wait For New Law    

Md. Abdul Khalique and Ors. v. The State of Manipur and Ors. - (High Court of Manipur) (06 Jun 2016)

Slight deviation from guidelines forgivable at judicial review

MANU/MN/0052/2016

Constitution

Manipur High Court dismissed challenge by a constable of the police force against his dismissal order, which he claimed was passed without an enquiry being held and on the basis of uncorroborated evidence.

The court rejected Petitioner’s claims that his dismissal from the force was solely on the basis of a statement of a self-proclaimed leader of a banned army organisation; instead it noted the police to have recorded other instances of Petitioner’s “subversive activities”. The State’s intelligence agencies had also unearthed other incriminating evidence against him.

The Petitioner, a constable with the police force, was arrested for partaking in acts adversely affecting security in the State and was involved in anti-national activities. One of the several charges proved against him included hurling a hand grenade near a hospital.

The court concluded that judicial review of the dismissal order was restricted to the relevant authorities not having followed prescribed guidelines. However, departure from norm would likely not be interfered in by courts unless the same prejudice the interests of the public.

Relevant : Union of India v. Indo-Afghan Agencies Ltd. MANU/SC/0021/1967 Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India and Ors. MANU/SC/0048/1979 A.K. Kaul and another vs. Union of India and another MANU/SC/0267/1995

Tags : JUDICIAL REVIEW   ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER   NATIONAL SECURITY   DEVIATION   GUIDELINES  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved