R LALBIAKTHANGA Vs. STARE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. G. Raju, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Mr. T. Vaiphei, the learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram.

(2.) In this petition the order dated 13.5.92 (Annexure-VIII) passed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl District directing recovery of supply-sale proceeds allegedly misappropriated by the writ petitioner has been challenged.

(3.) Shri Raju, the learned counset for the writ petitioner submitted that the writ petitioner while posted as Administrative Officer at Kawnpui was charged with the offence of mis appropriation and placed under suspension on 18.8.87. In the meantime, the matter was also referred to Police and two criminal proceedings were initiated. Thereafter, the suspension order of the petitioner was revoked by an order passed on 22.5.89 and the has been allowed to continue as Administrative Officer at Kawnpui as before. The criminal proceedings initiated were disposed of in 1998 and 1999 and the writ petitioner was acquitted in both the cases. After about three years, the impugned order has been issued by the Addl Deputy Commissioner directing recovery without taking recourse to the provisions of law embodied in Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. His further contention is that the office Memorandum dated 27.8.91 issued by the Vigilance Department for recovetry of outstanding liabilities of Government servants is contrary to the provisions of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1965. Shri Raju, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that without initiation of a departmental proceeding and without recording a finding of guilt. the order for recovery could not be passed siince rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 envisaged recovery of Government amount by way of imposition of penalty only.