GUWAHATI: The Manipur High Court took the help of ChatGPT to do research on service laws as it disposed of a writ petition.
Md Zakir Hussain (36), a Village Defence Force (VDF) member, had moved the court to challenge his “disengagement” by the police authorities for alleged dereliction of duty – an accused had escaped from the custody of Thoubal police while the petitioner was on duty.
A single bench of Justice A Guneshwar Sharma said the petitioner was disengaged from being a member of VDF without affording an opportunity of being heard and without any enquiry.
The court had directed the government counsel to explain the procedures for disengagement of VDF personnel by filing a counter-affidavit. However, nothing in this regard was mentioned when the affidavit was filed.
The court said it was compelled to do extra research through Google and ChatGPT. It collected the following information:
“The Village Defence Force, popularly known as VDF, in Manipur was established to enhance local security and assist the police in maintaining law and order, especially in the rural areas. Initiated under the Manipur Police, the VDF consists of volunteers from the local communities who are trained and equipped to guard their villages against various threats, including insurgent activities and ethnic violence. After completing the training successfully and passing any required assessments, the candidates are formally appointed as members of VDF. Once appointed, VDFs are assigned duty along with the police force. However, there is no material on record regarding the service conditions of VDF personnel.”
The court said on further research that it came across an Office Memorandum (OM) dated 18.10.2022 and issued by the Home Department, Government of Manipur, laying down service conditions of VDF.
“The OM, inter-alia, stipulates…that a show cause notice to explain the charges against a VDF personnel be given mandatorily and an appeal lies to DIG from any adverse order passed by the SP against a VDF personnel,” the court said.
However, the court added, the OM was not mentioned in the counter-affidavit despite a direction.
The court held that even in the absence of statutory rules, an employee should be allowed to be heard before his service is terminated especially when the termination is stigmatic.
“In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 02.01.2021 disengaging the petitioner from the strength of Thoubal district VDF is set aside. The petitioner is restored to the strength and roll of VDF Thoubal with immediate effect,” the court ordered.
It added that the period from the date of disengagement to the date of the order would be treated as in service and the petitioner would be entitled to 50% of back honorarium and allowances as admissible.