7 Feb 2022
Order issued
ConcludedThe Meghalaya High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 3
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2022-0001MeghalayaJudgment 7 February 2022
Meghalaya Police personnel v. State of Meghalaya & Ors.
The judgment of the Meghalaya High Court records the following account. [name withheld] of the Meghalaya police was summarily dismissed on 15 January 2016 after a confidential report found he had passed information about police operations and movements to the banned Garo National Liberation Army (GNLA) outfit, at a time when the outfit's violence had killed several police personnel; inquiry was dispensed with under Article 311(2)(b). His departmental appeal was rejected in October 2019 and a Single Judge upheld the dismissal in December 2021. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdoh dismissed his writ appeal, holding that when a policeman betrays his force to an outlawed outfit the police were combating, inquiry could justifiably be held not reasonably practicable, and that reasons obvious and apparent satisfy the spirit of Article 311(2)(b).
Externally reportedV2
What this record means
This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.
How verification works →Detailed record
Report card
By judgment dated 7 February 2022 in MC (WA) No. 1 of 2022 in WA No. 1 of 2022, the Meghalaya High Court (Coram: Sanjib Banerjee, W. Diengdoh, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Police personnel, Meghalaya Police.
- Register number
- ML 00 CW 0001
- Case reference
- MC (WA) No. 1 of 2022 in WA No. 1 of 2022 / 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 3
- Court and date
- Meghalaya High Court (Coram: Sanjib Banerjee, W. Diengdoh, JJ.), 7 February 2022
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Police personnel, Meghalaya Police
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “When a member of the police force was found betraying his own force and supplying information to an extremist outfit that the police organisation was trying to deal with, it was justifiable on the part of the disciplinary authority to …” (at para 15)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Disciplinary action upheld. Sentence: dismissal.
- Present status of the proceedings
- No further proceedings are recorded in the cited sources; the judgment is the concluded position shown.
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
Current position
The Meghalaya High Court judgment dated 7 February 2022 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.
Evidence position
Recorded allegations
OtherPrimary
Material fact supported
Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.
Official finding: supports allegation.
Attributed to the court
What the court found
Holding not recorded separately.
“When a member of the police force was found betraying his own force and supplying information to an extremist outfit that the police organisation was trying to deal with, it was justifiable on the part of the disciplinary authority to …” (para 15)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
Continuing record
Follow-up history
19 Sep 2026
(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))
Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.
Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.