STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH Vs. KOMMIK KADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present two appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dtd. 5/3/2021 passed in WP(C)/56(AP)/2015. While the WA/8(AP)/2021 has been preferred by the State of Arunachal Pradesh challenging the direction for reinstatement of the writ petitioner in service, WA/10(AP)/2021 has been preferred by the writ petitioner against the refusal of the learned Single Judge to the prayer for payment of back wages. Both the appeals being heard together, are disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) Before coming to the issues which would call for a determination, it would be convenient to put on record the brief facts.

(3.) The writ petitioner was working as an Assistant (U/S) in the Police Head Quarters (PHQ) at Itanagar and in course of her employment, she was attached as Cashier in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Chimpu for the period January to December, 2009. While working in the said capacity, the authorities, at the time of audit in the year 2011, could detect major anomalies with regard to certain deposits. Accordingly, two numbers of FIRs were lodged - the first one was with regard to failure on the part of the writ petitioner to deposit VAT/Entry Tax in the Government account amounting to Rs.25,42,082.00. In the second FIR, the allegation was that though the petitioner had made an entry in the Cash Book regarding payment of an amount of Rs.2,29,673.00 to a Firm, namely, M/s. Arunachal Agency House, such payment was never actually received by the said Firm. Simultaneously, two departmental proceedings were also initiated against the writ petitioner and she was put under suspension. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the allegations in the two departmental proceedings were same as made in the two FIRs which led to registration of Itanagar PS Case Nos. 183/2011 and 184/2011. Further, without waiting for the result of the criminal cases, the departmental proceedings were completed culminating in the order dtd. 18/9/2014 by which the writ petitioner was dismissed from service. The writ petitioner had unsuccessfully preferred a departmental appeal which was rejected vide order dtd. 13/1/2015.