C LAWIHMINGTHANGA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the issues involved in this case are, that the petitioner was temporary appointed as officiating LDC in the scale of pay of Rs.260-400 P.M. vide order dated 15.4.78. The petitioner was absorbed in regular vacancy of LDC with effect from 5.5.78 and thereafter, he was confirmed against a permanent post of LDC with effect from 1.5.82 vide order dated 11.3.83. The petitioner was put under suspension in contemplation of the departmental enquiry vide order dated 18.2.86. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet on 14.5.86 wherein the petitioner was charged for absenting himself from duty without taking prior permission and that he had failed to maintain the account in respect of sale proceed properly and had misappropriated a sum of Rs.3,84,862/- being supply of sale proceed Biate Group Centre, lastly, while functioning as LDC he had spent Rs. 7000/- being supply of sale proceed of Biate Group Centre for other purposes.

(2.) The Respondent No. 3 the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl had appointed Sri Lalsawta, District Civil Supply Officer, Aizawl as Enquiry Officer. On 14.5.86 the petitioner submitted written statement of defence wherein he had specifically denied the charges made against him Sri Lalsawta could not complete the enquiry against the petitioner and in his place Smti. Zohmingthangi, EAC, was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. She also could not complete the enquiry and in her place, Sri Haokhomang Haokip, ADC(P) was again appointed as third Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner vide order dated 28.4.1989. Side by side, with the Departmental enquiry, a Criminal case was also instituted against the petitioner by filing an FIR dated 29.7.86 at Aizawl Police Station. The said Criminal Case was registered as GR No.416/86 under Section 409 IPC. The Criminal case was in regard to the three charges except the charge of absence from duty without taking prior permission and the Criminal Court has acquitted the petitioner from all the charges, as it was found that the accused petitioner committed no offence punishable under Section 409 IPC. No appeal was filed by the respondents challenging the acquittal.

(3.) The third enquiry officer Sh. Haokhomang Haokip, ADC(P), after completing the departmental enquiry had submitted his enquiry report to the respondent No.3, who was the Disciplinary Authority. The enquiry report so submitted by him was not accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and the Disciplinary Authority in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-rule(2) of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to the 'Rules, 1965') had appointed another Enquiry Officer Sri Tlanglianruma, ADC vide order dated 27.3.99. It is admitted in the Return filed by the Respondent State that on receipt of the enquiry report from Sri Haokhomang Haokip, the Disciplinary Authority found the enquiry proceeding to be incomplete, as a result, another Enquiry Officer, namely, Tlanglianruma, EAC was appointed as new Enquiry Officer, in terms of Rules 1965. Shri Tlanglianruma, the fourth Enquiry officer, had finally concluded the proceedings of the departmental enquiry and submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority sometime in the year 1992. After receipt of the enquiry report, the Respondent No. 4, Commissioner of Rural Development, Mizoram, Aizawl has passed and order of removal of the petitioner from service on 19.5.92 under Rule 17(1) of the Rules 1965. This order is under challenge in this writ petition. It is an admitted fact that neither the Enquiry Officer nor the Disciplinary Authority had furnished copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner.