Consumer Court Directs Amazon, Seller to Pay Rs.4.68 Lakh to Customer as Compensation  ||  MP HC: Pension is a Proprietary Right and Cannot be Withheld unless Grave Misconduct is Proved  ||  HP High Court: ITBP Constable Removal For Affair Disproportionate; Orders Compulsory Retirement  ||  Calcutta High Court: Trade Licence Not Required For Advocates’ Partnership Registration  ||  Supreme Court: Courts Cannot Compel Plaintiffs to Accept Compensation Instead of Injunctions  ||  Delhi HC: Saying “Maro Sale Ko” During a Fight Alone Does Not by Itself Establish Intent to Kill  ||  Delhi HC Ordered Removal of Fake News About Judges’ London Badminton Event, Restrained its Sharing  ||  Bombay HC: Calling Police over Routine Transfers or External Complaints is Misconduct  ||  Delhi HC Upheld EC’s Decision Banning Political Ads in the Delhi Metro During Model Code of Conduct  ||  Delhi HC: In the Telegram Case Entire Social Media Platforms Can Be Blocked U/S 69A of the IT Act    

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