LAWS(GAU)-2001-1-41

CH. SURCHANDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

Decided On January 16, 2001
Ch. Surchandra Singh Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MANIPUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Ng. Prem Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. S. Reisang, learned Government Advocate.

(2.) THE petitioner has been serving as Chowkidar in the Directorate of Youth Affairs and Sports, Manipur. He was appointed on 11.11.1982 by the Director of Sports Phy. Edn. and Youth Services, Government of Manipur. By an order dated 13.10.1986 passed by the Director, Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of Manipur under Sub -rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rule 1965 the services of the petitioner were terminated. Against the said order of termination the petitioner approached this court and by a judgment and order dated 12.8.1996 passed in Civil Rule No. 312 of 1989 this court quashed the termination order dated 13.10.1986 and liberty was given to the authority concerned to take departmental action against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of law, if so advised. Thereafter a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by issuing Memorandum dated 14.1.1997 incorporating article of charges and statements of imputation of mis -conduct. It appears that the Inquiry Officers submitted a report exonerating the petitioner but the Disciplinary Authority dis -agreed with the report of the Inquiry Officer and passed an order dated 10th June, 1999 thereby removing the petitioner his service.

(3.) IT may have be noted that inspite of several opportunities having been given to the Respondent, no counter affidavit has been filed. Again in the petition itself the petitioner has averred that a statutory appeal has been filed to the Appellate Authority as early as on 27th June, 1999 but the Appellate Authority did not consider the matter at all. Thus, the petitioner approached this court. From the records of the case it is found that learned Government Advocate sought for time on several occasions and this court granted time to enable the Appellate Authority to dispose of the matter. Here also inspite of several opportunities and even upon giving direction to dispose of the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner, the same has not yet been disposed of. Considering the nature of the point involved in this case which I am going to discuss herein, I propose to decide the present case without waiting for any decision to be arrived at by the Appellate Authority.