TANI JONGKEY Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Muk Pertin, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Lissing Perme, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh, appearing on behalf of the State Respondents.

(2.) The writ petition i.e. WP(C) 478 (AP) 2019 has been filed by the writ petitioner, challenging the inquiry report, dt. 14/9/2018, and the order, dtd. 12/8/2019, issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, vide Memo. No. TAX(E)-48/2017 whereby the petitioner has been imposed a penalty of compulsory retirement in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 15(4) read with rule 11(vii) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, pursuant to the inquiry report, dtd. 14/9/2018, submitted by Dr. Tapasya Raghav, IAS, in terms of the Order No. TAX(E)-48/2017/486, dtd. 22/8/2017, regarding conducting the inquiry under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, pursuant to the inquiry report, dtd. 14/9/2018, against the petitioner.

(3.) The subsequent petition i.e. WP(c) 20(AP)2020 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order, dtd. 13/12/2019, passed by the appellate authority, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner under Rule 23 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, against the inquiry report, dtd. 14/9/2018, as well as the disciplinary order, dtd. 12/8/2019, in addition to the challenge made in WP(c) 478(AP)2019, namely, the inquiry report, dtd. 14/9/2018, and the disciplinary order, dtd. 12/8/2019.