NGURTHANSANGA SAILO Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, learned Additional Advocate General, Mizoram for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as constable on the basis of recommendation made by the Mizoram Police Establishment Board by order dated 18.07.2008. While the petitioner was posted at 4th IR Battalion, Aizawl, Mizoram, he was served with a memorandum of charge dated 5.07.2012 wherein the petitioner was charged with possession of 31 capsules of Parvon Spas which he kept without authorization. Thereafter, departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner wherein the enquiry officer had held both the charges to be proved against the petitioner. The enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report on 29.11.2012. The petitioner was furnished with a copy of the enquiry report by the respondent No. 3 by a communication dated 30th November, 2012.

(3.) The petitioner, thereafter, filed an appeal under Rule 1045 of the Mizoram Police Manual, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as MPM, 2006) against the order dated 4.12.2012 before the appellate authority. Therein, amongst others, the petitioner had taken a ground that as per Rule 1037 of the MNP, 2006 it is provided that in every case where it is contemplated to impose on a member of any of the State Police the major punishments he shall be given a reasonable opportunity of making any representation that he may desire to make and such representation, if any, shall be taken into consideration before the order imposing the punishment is passed. He, therefore, alleged that he was not given any show cause notice before imposing the penalty of removal from service. The appellate authority, after considering the appeal filed by the petitioner, had dismissed the appeal by an order dated 12th April, 2013. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition.