DULAL CH SARMA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 23.1.96 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 13/90 filed by the appellant.

(2.) The facts briefly are that the appellant was working as Accountant under the Director of Supply and Transport, Government of Mizoram. By order dated 10.1.74, the Director of Supply and Transport, Government of Mizoram placed the appellant under suspension pending drawal of departmental proceeding against him for continuous unauthorised absence from duty. The said disciplinary authority issued a memorandum dated 2.3.74 wherein it was mentioned that the disciplinary authority proposed to hold an enquiry under rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Along with the said memorandum, article of charge was annexed wherein it was alleged that the appellant while functioning as Accountant during the period from 10.1.70 to 9.1.74 was absent from duty without any authority from 20.6.73 to 9.1.74. By the said memorandum, the appellant was directed to submit his written statement in defence. The appellant submitted his written statement but the same was not accepted by the said disciplinary authority. Instead by order dated 17.8.74, the said disciplinary authority appointed Shri T. Gohain, the Accounts Officer, as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charge framed against the appellant. The said Enquiry Officer held the enquiry and submitted the report dated 31.7.75. In the report the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the appellant was suffering from the disease off lungs as indicated in the medical certificate dated 11.12.74. However, the Enquiry Officer was of the view that the appellant had committed misconduct but was liable to be dealt with leniently. The relevant portion of the said enquiry report is extracted hereinbelow:

(3.) Mr G. Raju, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that it would be clear from the enquiry report that in fact the appellant was suffering from TB and for this reason, the Enquiry Officer has recommended to the authorities to deal with the case of the appellant leniently and to impose punishment of stoppage of three annual increments. He submitted that in view of clear evidence before the Enquiry Officer that the appellant was suffering from TB, the disciplinary authority could not have come to a finding that the absence of the appellant from duties was totally without any cause and that the alleged misconduct on the part of the appellant whs wilful. Mr Raju further submitted that the order of the appellate authority also does not disclose the reason for which the appeal of the appellant was rejected. Mr Raju further submitted that after dismissal from service, the appellant was staying in a remote place of the State of Assam and, therefore, he could not possibly approach the Court immediately by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the delay of about 2 years in filing the writ petition should not have weighed with the learned Single Judge for dismissing the writ petition.