C SANGKHUMA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Mr.C. Lalramzauva, assited by Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Vaiphei, learned Assistant Advicate General for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner Sh.C. Sangkhuma was initially appointed as Administrative Officer (N.G. under the Government of Mizoram in the year 1974 and subsequently he was promoted in Sub Civil Service Group 'B' in the year 1987. While the petitioner was working as Administrative Officer (G) at Khawhai and in the same capacity at Lunglei, there were allegations of misappropriation of supply sale proceeds against him and as such by Office Memorandum dated 4th June, 1990 (Annexure-II) he was served with the chargesheet.The petitioner submitted reply denying the charges. On completion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 25th Sept. 1992. Against the report of the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner submitted his representation on 26th April, 1993. No final order was passed on the Inquiry report and on the petitioner's representation thereto, leading the petitioner to presume that the disciplinary authority had dropped the proceedings against him. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31st December, 1996 and retired from his service, in purported exercise of power under Rule 9 of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972, the respondent No. 2. Secretary of the Department issued a Show Cause Notice dated 31st July, 1997 to the petitioner as to why the full pension of the petitioner be not permanently withdrawn. The respondents referred the matter to Mizoram Public Service Commission (M.P.S.C) as required under CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 and on receipt of the recommendations of the Mizoram Public Service Commission, imposed penalty of permanent withdrawal of 1/3 of petitioner's pension. The petitioner by way of this writ petition has assailed the penally of permanent withdrawal of his 1/3 pension.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that under Rule 9 of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972, deduction in pension of an employee can be ordered only when he is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of service. In the instant case, the Inquiry Officer has not found the charges levelled against the petitioner proved nor has found the petitioner guilty of grave misconduct or negligence. Vide O.M. No. 2)9/43/70 Ests(A) dt. 8.1.71 issued by the Govt of India under Rule 15 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, the Disciplinary Authority ought to have taken the decision on the inquiry report within a period of three(3) months. The inquiry report was submitted in September, 1972, the petitioner submitted his representation in April 1993. The Disciplinary Authority did not take any decision in the matter, kept the matter pending and after lapse of a period of four years after the petitioner has retired, has conwerted the Departmental Proceedings into proceedings under Rule 9 of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972. By the delayed action, the. respondent have dropped the proceeding against the petitioner and the petitioner entertained such presumption, until he received Show Cause Notice.