SH. RAMFANGZAUVA ALIAS K RAMFANGZAUVA,S/O ROKHAMA (L)R/O SIALSIR, SERCHHIP DISTRICT, MIZORAM Vs. THE STATE OF MIZORAM REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF MIZORAM, AIZAWL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is the inaction on the part of the respondents No.3/4 to dispose of the appeal filed by him as early as 26.09.2007 (Annexure -7). The appeal filed by him is under Rule 66 of the Assam Police Manual Part -III from the order removing him from the service by the Commandant, 2nd IR (Mizo) Battalion, Hqrs. Sukma, Chhatisgarh. The petitioner was appointed as constable in the 3rd Battelion of Mizoram Armed Police vice his late brother Constable Lalhmunsiama on 08.02.1996. He was subsequently confirmed in his post with effect from 12.10.1999 whereafter he was transferred to 2nd IR (Mizo) Battalion and was deployed in Naxalite infested area of Chhatisgarh for combating the Naxalite insurgency. While he was posted there, the respondent authorities proceeded to initiate a departmental inquiry against him by furnishing him a memorandum with a number of allegations against him. The case of the petitioner is that he was forced by his superior authority to admit the allegations made against him by holding out the promise that he would eventually be pardoned and no harsh action would be taken against him. Acting upon this representation by his superior authority, he admitted to the allegations with the expectation that no major penalty would be awarded against him. However, the respondents are alleged to have backed out from their earlier promise and proceeded to give him a penalty of removal. The impugned order of removal dated 30.07.2007 was accordingly passed against him. Aggrieved by this, he preferred an appeal to the respondent No. 4, who is the statutory appellate authority, on 26.09.2007, but the same has not been disposed of till date. This is how this writ petition came to be filed seeking appropriate relief. Both Mr. C. Lalramzauva, the learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. T.J. Lalnuntluanga, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A.K. Rokhum, the learned Addl. Advocate General, who has entered his appearance on behalf of the State respondents, have been extensively heard.

(2.) IN view of the nature of the prayer now made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and on considering the matter from all angles, I do not propose to issue formal notices to the respondent authorities and decide to dispose of this writ petition today at the Motion stage itself. It is a settled law that an appeal is not an empty formality, and the appellate authority is expected to, and must, dispose of the appeal filed before him in accordance with law. As there is a statutory remedy available to the petitioner, he is ordinarily barred from approaching this Court at the first instance. The inaction of the respondent No. 4 in not disposing of the appeal filed by the petitioner even after almost five years has obviously left the petitioner in the lurch and in a piquant situation. On the other hand, when a statutory remedy of appeal is proceeded for in the related Police Manual, this Court also cannot entertain into the merit of the case of the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution until he has exhausted the statutory remedy. All that this Court can do at this juncture is to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondent No. 4 or any other available statutory authority to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 26.09.2007 which is at Annexure -7 to the writ petition, in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. Order accordingly. For easy reference, the petitioner will furnish a copy of the memo of appeal filed by him on 26.09.2007 to the respondent No. 4 or any other appellate authority. No cost.