LALMUANTHANGA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. George Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Vaiphei. Addl. Advocate General assisted by Mr. N. Sailo, learned Govt. Advocate Mizoram for the State/Respondents.

(2.) The Writ petitioner, who was a Constable while serving in 3rd Bn, Mizoram Armed Police since 1996 was removed from service vide impugned order dated 2.9.98 (Annexure- 5 to the Writ Petition) issued by the Commandant, 3rd Ban MAP, Aizawl. This impugned order is under challenge.

(3.) The removal of the Petitioner according to Mr. Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner, is challenged only on the sole ground of non-furnishing of enquiry report for which the Petitioner was highly prejudiced and the same has hit the principle of natural justice. On the other hand Mr. Vaiphei, learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram, defending the impugned removal order, has contended that though enquiry report was not furnished to the Petitioner, he was no way prejudiced by the impugned order inasmuch as the finding of the enquiry officer was mainly based on evidences of the witnesses produced by the prosecution including the admission of the petitioner himself as regards his guilt.