The Attorney General's Office has decided to appeal the stipulation in High Court's ruling to reinstate Inspector of Police Ahmed Shiyam that he must be paid salaries and allowances from the time of his dismissal to his reinstatement, spanning 12 years. 

The Attorney General's Office said that they are appealing this order as it contradicts a previous Supreme Court decision. 

Shiyam was dismissed in May, 2014, on allegations that he had abused the powers of his position as North Division Police Commander. Shiyam filed a case against his dismissal at the Civil Court, which previously ruled that there are no grounds to order his reinstatement.   

Shiyam then appealed the ruling at the High Court, which ruled last Thursday that he must be reinstated, and salaries and allowances from the time of his dismissal to his reinstatement must be paid to him.  

An official from the Attorney General's Office, however, claimed today that the High Court's decision contradicts a previous Supreme Court ruling. 

As was last ruled by the Supreme Court, if an individual is reinstated, they can be issued salaries and allowances for a maximum period of six months. However, if they are not reinstated, they must be given salaries and allowances for a one-year period. 

The official said that based on this, the AG Office has decided to appeal the High Court's ruling. 

The official further said that under policies on employment, the matter of reinstatement has been forwarded to Police for consideration. A final decision will be made by the Police, he said. 

"Police have not yet shared their decision with the Attorney General's Office," he said. 

According to Thursday's High Court ruling, the State submitted no evidence indicating what the Police Disciplinary Board based its decision to dismiss Shiyam on. Therefore, the Court found that the State had not proven that a sufficient investigation had been carried out.   

The court affirmed that the burden of proving the dismissal was justified lies with the State. It adds that, under a prior Supreme Court precedent, courts must assess whether the Police Disciplinary Board conducted a sufficient investigation and whether sufficient evidence was obtained in police dismissal matters.   

As the State has failed to present such evidence, the Disciplinary Board's decision must be voided, the unanimous ruling by the three-judge bench states.