Meghalaya High Court
WA/64/2025 of ALBERT SUTING Vs THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND 5 ORS. on 13 October 2025
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG MC(WA) No. 73 of 2025 In WA No. 64 of 2025 Date of order: 13.10.2025 Albert Suting …Applicant/Appellant - versus - 1. The State of Meghalaya Principal Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Meghalaya, Shillong. 2. The Under Secretary, Govt. of Meghalaya,
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
MC(WA) No. 73 of 2025
In WA No. 64 of 2025
Date of order: 13.10.2025
Albert Suting
…Applicant/Appellant
- versus -
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The State of Meghalaya Principal Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Meghalaya, Shillong.
2. The Under Secretary, Govt. of Meghalaya, Home (Police) Department, Meghalaya, Shillong.
3. The Deputy Secretary, Govt. of Meghalaya Home (Police) Department, Meghalaya, Shillong.
4. The Director General of Police, Meghalaya, Shillong.
5. The Inspector General of Police (TAP), Meghalaya, Shillong.
6. The Commandant 3MLP (IRBN), Jowai, West Jaintia Hills District, Meghalaya.
…Respondents
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Soumen Sen, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge Appearance: For the Applicant/Appellant : Mr K.C. Gautam, Adv. with
Mr J.M. Sangma, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr N.D. Chullai, AAG with
Mr E.R. Chyne, GA
i) Whether approved for
Yes/No
reporting in Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press: Serial No. 05 Daily List 2025:MLHC:970-DB
ORDER: (per the Hon’ble, the Chief Justice) (Oral)
There is a delay of 1154 days in preferring the appeal.
2. The conduct of the appellant for any sympathetic or equitable consideration in deciding the application for condonation of delay does not arise having regard of his past conduct during the disciplinary proceeding. The appellant was dismissed from service due to unauthorised absence of almost 807 days. Inspite of service of a show cause notice, the appellant did not reply to the show cause notice nor did he appear before the Enquiry Officer inspite of service of notice of each date of the inquiry proceeding.
3. In view of the aforesaid conduct and also due to unsatisfactory explanation offered for not preferring the appeal during the period of limitation, we are not inclined to condone the delay.
4. The application [MC(WA) No. 73 of 2025] and the appeal [WA No. 64 of 2025] stand dismissed.
5. No order as to costs.
(B. Bhattacharjee) (Soumen Sen)
Judge Chief Justice
2025:MLHC:970-DB Digitally signed by SYLVANA LIZ KHARBHIH Date: 2025.10.13 16:30:49 IST Signature Not Verified