The Meghalaya High Court on Friday, 17 October 2025, upheld the dismissal of a police Sub-Inspector who had been out of service since 2014, rejecting his plea that the punishment was “too harsh.” Justice H.S. Thangkhiew, delivering an oral judgment, said the officer’s prolonged unauthorized absence - spanning 645 days - amounted to a serious breach of discipline for a law enforcement officer.
Background
The case was filed by Shri Rajiv A. Sangma, a Sub-Inspector appointed in 1999, who challenged his dismissal order dated 4 February 2014. Sangma argued that his absence from duty between April 2012 and January 2014 was due to illness and personal hardship. He claimed that the authorities ignored his medical explanations and dismissed him without fair consideration.
Represented by advocate Ms. A. Rani, Sangma contended that the punishment was “disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.” His statutory appeal filed in 2024 had also been rejected, prompting him to approach the High Court.
On the other hand, Additional Advocate General N.D. Chullai, assisted by Government Advocate E.R. Chyne, maintained that Sangma’s absence without prior approval or intimation constituted “grave misconduct”, especially for a member of the police force. The government emphasized that disciplinary proceedings followed due process and that the officer’s explanations were unconvincing and medically unsupported.
Court’s Observations
Justice Thangkhiew observed that the petitioner had not produced any credible evidence showing that disciplinary procedures were conducted unfairly or that principles of natural justice were violated.
“The petitioner has failed to substantiate his claim that the absence was caused by medical reasons,” the judge remarked, after examining the medical certificates appended to the petition. “Nowhere do these documents support his contention or indicate that he was unfit for duty.”
Citing a 2023 precedent - Shri Amzad Khan vs State of Meghalaya & Ors and a Supreme Court ruling (Union of India vs Datta Linga Toshatwad, 2005), the Court stressed that members of disciplined forces must uphold higher standards of conduct.
“The Court cannot overlook the repeated tendency of personnel citing illness or depression without proper justification. Such conduct, if ignored, would set a poor example for the uniformed services,” the bench noted.
Decision
Finding no procedural fault or evidence of disproportionate punishment, the Court refused to interfere with the dismissal order. Justice Thangkhiew concluded that the writ petition “fails to make out any case for reconsideration” and accordingly dismissed it.
With that, the long-drawn case which began over a decade ago came to an end, reaffirming that discipline within the police ranks cannot be compromised on grounds of unproven illness or delayed appeals.
Case: Rajiv A. Sangma vs State of Meghalaya & Others
Petitioner: Shri Rajiv A. Sangma, Sub-Inspector of Police
Respondents: State of Meghalaya (Home Department) & Police Officials
Date of Judgment: 17 October 2025