UBC/136 TOILINGWEL TOI Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By instant motion, petitioner seeks modification/clarification of the order dated 06.06.2017 passed in WP(C) No. 160 of 2017 so as to grant liberty to respondent No. 2 to reconsider the case of the petitioner.

(2.) It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that based on an application of Mrs. Banridashisha Syiemlieh, inquiry was conducted against the petitioner. Report exonerating the petitioner was not agreed to by the Disciplinary authority, as a result whereof, Disciplinary authority issued Notice No. RE/EGH/VII-3/Pt-7/2013-17/76 dated 24.05.2017 asking the petitioner as to why he should not be removed from service.

(3.) The said notice is under challenge in WP(C) No. 160 of 2017, vide interim order dated 06.06.2017 operation of the said notice has been stayed. Subsequent thereto, the applicant Mrs. Banridashisha Syiemlieh has submitted an application, withdrawing all allegations against the petitioner, to the Superintendent of Police, East Garo Hills, Meghalaya based on which the petitioner according to the learned counsel has been assured dropping of the Disciplinary proceedings but since operation of the show cause notice has been stayed, therefore, a clarification may be issued to the effect that the respondents shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders regarding dropping of the proceedings.