FEDERICK M. DOPTH Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the validity of the order dated 18-10-2005 issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Meghalaya, imposing a penalty of censure upon the petitioner and of the consequential order dated 19-10-2006 denying him retrospective promotion to the grade of Meghalya Civil Service, Senior Scale, is called into question.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the writ petition, as pleaded by the petitioner, are that he along with some twenty candidates, on the recommendation of the Meghalaya Public Service Commission, were appointed to the Meghalaya Civil Service on 2-6-1994 and that he joined the service on 16-6-1994. In the merit list published by the MPSC, his name found a place in serial number 4 while the names of the pro-forma respondents were placed at serial number 6 to 14 of the merit list. After undergoing the required training, he and the said respondents were initially posted as Extra-Assistant Commissioners. While holding the post of Extra-Assistant Commissioner, he was also appointed as Block Development Officer of Mawkyrwat Development Block, West Khasi Hills District. He passed the departmental examination on 22-10-1999. It is his case that he, unlike his junior colleagues, was not immediately confirmed to the post nor was he granted an increment. In the year 1997, when he had taken over the post of Block Development Officer, Mawkyrwat, from Mr. S. Kharlyngdoh, MCS, he found irregularities in the selection of beneficiaries and in the implementation of various schemes such as SF, MF, MWS, EAS, etc. and brought the same to the letter's notice. In particular, he pointed out to Mr. S. Kharlyngdoh that the names of poor beneficiaries recommended by him for the schemes for 1997-98 and 1998-99 were none other than the labourers or workers of his father or relatives and that the agricultural lands/paddy fields in which the schemes were to be implemented also belonged to his father or relatives. The above revelations made by him incurred the wrath of the said S. Kharlyngdoh, which resulted in his harassment and victimization. In the year 2001, received summons from the Inspector, Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Shillong directing him to appear before him on 5-9-2001 for recording his statement in connection with ACB Enquiry Case No. 1(3) of 2001. He accordingly appeared before the Inspector, ACB, who recorded his statement. On subsequent dates also, as desired by the Inspector, he supplied some documents and signatures to him. Nothing happened to his knowledge thereafter in respect of the said enquiry. However, the State-respondents arbitrarily withheld his confirmation of service, increment and higher pay scale. This led him to file representation to the respondent No. 4 to redress his grievance, but nothing came out of it. Instead, much to his consternation, the respondent No. 2 issued the notification dated 30-4-2003 promoting his junior colleagues like the pro-forma respondents to officiate in the Senior Grade Scale of MCS while excluding his name.

(3.) The aforesaid developments prompted him to file WP(C) No. 124 (SH) of 2003 against the State-respondents before this Court, which, while admitting the writ petition, among others, passed an interim order directing that one promotional post be kept vacant. It is the allegation of the petitioner that he subsequently withdrew the writ petition after he was advised by the State authorities that his grievances would be could not be redressed when his writ was pending for adjudication in Court. He was, therefore, given to understand that his case would be favourably considered by the State-respondents if he withdrew the writ petition. On withdrawal of the writ petition, he promptly filed a representation to the respondent No. 1 on 15-9-2003 for considering his promotion in accordance with his seniority in the cadre, but the same proved futile. On the contrary, to his surprise, he was served with Office Memorandum dated 5-11-2003 charge-sheeting him for his involvement in malpractices and gross misconduct in the implementation of IAY Scheme and of collecting a cut of Rs. 500.00 from each of the beneficiaries of the said Scheme in respect of Photdel village during the distribution of cheques/cash by way of gratification and requiring him to submit his show cause within fifteen days. He accordingly filed his written statement of defence by refuting the charges and denying any act of misconduct by him. The State-respondents did not accept the explanation by the petitioner whereupon they appointed an Enquiry Officer as well as Presenting Officer to conduct the departmental enquiry against him. In the course of the enquiry, several witnesses were examined by the Enquiry Officer, who, after conclusion of the enquiry, submitted his report to the State-respondents.