STATE OF MIZORAM Vs. VIJAYA LAKHSMI RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent herein Smti Vrjaya Lakhsmi Rai during her tenure as Administrative Officer in Lallen and Tuipuibveri Group Centre in the year 1982-86 and 1986-88 has not deposited a sum of Rs. 1,02,194.16 and Rs.5,66,583.33 respectively out of the sale proceeds of the rice of these two group centres and thus according to the State, has misappropriated the said amounts. On the basis of the report dated 8.3.1990 submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl, State has issued a charge sheet. Enquiry Officer was appointed and enquiry proceedings were taken up against the respondent. In spite of several notices and WT messages served on the respondent she did not appear in the enquiry and the Enquiry Officer proceeded exparte and found that the charges framed against the respondent are proved. A copy of the enquiry report was served on the respondent. The respondent was directed to pay the misappropriated amount within a period of one month by letter dated 31.3.1994, which was received by the respondent on 13.4.1994, but she did not deposit the amount and thereafter order of dismissal from service was issued on 5.11.1995. Statutory appeal was filed before the appellate authority, which was dismissed on 20.5.1996. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the respondent-petitioner filed a writ petition (WP (C) No.20 of 1998) before the learned Single Judge. It is submitted by the petitioner-respondent that the short fall attributed to her was not due to misappropriation but the same occurred due to natural calamities and on account of the fact that the rice had been issued to the villagers on humanitarian grounds, however, she was the only person dismissed from service for such alleged misappropriation, which is quite arbitrary and discriminatory inasmuch as her colleague one Lalrinsanga Colney was also dismissed from service on the allegation of misappropriation was however reinstated with some other minor penalties by the appellate authority, whereas in the case of the petitioner-respondent, the appellate authority without having regard to the aforesaid peculiar nature and extenuating circumstances of the case, confirmed her dismissal from service. On the other hand it has been alleged by the State that Lalrinsanga Colney was given the opportunity to deposit the amount defalcated in extended time, he deposited the whole amount, hence the authority reduced the penalty of dismissal from service to reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage and reinstated him in service/but so far the petitioner is concerned, she had not taken any extended opportunity for depositing the amount, therefore, the appellants justified the action taken in her case. The petitioner-respondent has challenged the exparte proceeding on the basis of her inability to obtain permission to leave the place of duty.

(2.) The learned Single Judge has considered the case of the petitioner and by judgment and order dated 5th April, 2002 held that the exparte enquiry taken against the petitioner was neither illegal nor unjust. The learned Single Judge has also reached to the conclusion that in spite of opportunity given to the petitioner-respondent she had not deposited the amount totalling Rs. 6,68,777.49, which she was under duty bound to refund. But the learned Single Judge has held that recovery of an amount of Rs. 71,205 from the petitioner without finalizing what amount was liable to be paid by the petitioner was illegal. After finding the disciplinary enquiry to be in accordance with law and the petitioner-respondent's liability to pay back the amount defalcated, the learned Single Judge has proceeded with the quantum of punishment and in paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment held thus :

(3.) On the basis of the aforesaid findings the learned Single Judge set aside the order of dismissal and instead thereof gave direction for imposition of same penalty as was imposed in the case of Lalringsanga Colney. The learned Single Judge gave further direction that the respondent No.2 shall after deduction of an amount of Rs.71,205 from the total misappropriated amount of Rs. 6,68,777.49 pass necessary order directing monthly deductions from the petitioner's pay and allowances to the extent of 50 percent of the salary that she may receive. In short, the learned Single Judge has reduced the penalty from dismissal to that of reduction to lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage and recovery of misappropriated amount. The learned Single Judge has strangely directed that the amount of Rs.71,205 which has already been deducted from the salary of the petitioner would be adjusted towards the misappropriated amount, which was contrary to the finding reached by the learned Single Judge that such recovery was illegal as there is no finalisation as to what amount the respondent was liable to pay.