H HRANGTIAMA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. H. Lalrinthanga, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.Sailo, learned Government Advocate, Mizoram appearing for the State respondents.

(2.) Inspite of due service of notices upon the private respondents, they have not appeared.

(3.) The petitioner was appointed as LDC on adhoc basis by order dated 28.6.73 and thereafter another appointment order dated 21.8.73 was issued. The petitioner's service was regularised with retrospective effect from 9.7.73 by order dated 27.9.1973. The petitioner was then appointed as Officiating U.D.C. against a deputation vacancy by an order dated 4.10.79. Thereafter the petitioner on the recommendation of DPC was promoted to the. post of UDC (Census) by an order dated 7.2.1980.Then by an order dated 30.6.1981, the petitioner was reverted to the post of L.D.C. presumably because he did not appear in the DPC. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 27.7.81 stating that he need not appear in the DPC for the post of UDC since he had already held the post of UDC as per the recommendation by the earlier DPC Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f. 10.3.1983 on the ground of contemplation of criminal proceedings against him by an order dated 20.10.83. A number of criminal cases were instituted against him under sections 468, 471IPC in G.R. No. 94/83, under sections 468, 409, 420, 471 I.P.C. in G.R. No. 168/84, under sections 468, 420 I.P.C. in G.R. No. 170/84 and under sections 468, 409, 420 I.P.C. in G.R. No. 169/ 84 The petitioner was equitted in all these cases except in G./r. No. 94/83 wherein he was convicted under section 468 I.P.C by the judgment and order dated 17.3.89. The operative portion of the judgment (Annexure-XII) reads as under: