PAWAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the Petitioner herein has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside and quashment of the impugned order No. 18011/5/2010-P&AR(CSW) dated 29.6.2010 issued by the Additional Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (CSW) whereby and where under the Petitioner has been suspended from service with immediate effect in contemplation of disciplinary proceeding against him.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for the purpose of disposal of the writ petition may be described as under:

(3.) Agitation called on the next day had been chalked out and on the same day the agitators also submitted a representation to the hon'ble Minister of the Department requesting Petitioner's either dismissal from service or transfer there from. Respondent No. 3 by his letter under memo No. A.19012/111/2007-P&AR(CSW) dated 19.10.2009 directed the Petitioner to take leave from the next day for three months. In the meantime, the appropriate Government created two post of consultant and two post of officer on Special Duty vide notification No. A.11013/a/ 89-SAD/PART dated 14.10.2009. On receipt of the letter dated 19.10.2009, whereby and where under the Petitioner was asked to go on leave for three months, submitted a representation vide letter No. A.43016/2/2009-E-IN-C/PHE/THU dated 22.10.2009 whereby and where under the Petitioner requested the authority to inform the circumstances warranting such direction. Since no reply was communicated to by the concerned authority, he submitted a second representation on 4.11.2009. Respondent No. 3 by letter dated 17.11.2009 under memo No. 19012/11/2007-P&AR(CSW) informed the Petitioner in reply to his representation dated 22.10.2009 that he was unable to control and manage the law and order situation developed within his office premises on 30.9.2009 and a preliminary inquiry is proposed to be held. The aforesaid letter also indicated that he should go on leave on receipt of the same at least for three months to enable the department to conduct the preliminary inquiry in his absence. Petitioner being aggrieved thereby submitted a representation on 27.11.2009 explaining the circumstances of the agitation so ensued/ undertaken on 30.9.2009 and also intimated that there was no valid reason for compelling him to take leave. It would be appropriate to mention that on account of agitation under taken by the work charged and muster-roll employees on 30.9.2009, the Petitioner submitted an explanation to the Principal Secretary, PHE Department vide his letter dated 8.10.2009 explaining the manner of allotment of LOC. But despite such clarification, the Petitioner was advised to take leave. The Joint Action Committee transmitted a letter to the Petitioner on 14.10.2009 to withdraw the explanation submitted to the Principal Secretary, PHE on 8.10.2009 or to face necessary action. While Petitioner was expecting withdrawal of letters dated 19.10.2009 and 17.11.2009 by notification dated 16.4.2010 he was posted to the newly created post of consultant issued by Respondent No. 3. The notification dated 16.4.2010 also indicated that he should handover the charge to the Chief Engineer, PHE on or before 22.4.2010 positively.