EX C REMRUATFELA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Lalremtluanga, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Lalsawirema, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents.

(2.) THE case in brief is that the petitioner after completing his basic training at the Police Training Centre (PTC), Thenzawl was posted thereafter in the 3rd Battalion, Mizoram Armed Police(MAP), Aizawl. That thereafter he was posted as a House Guard in a Minister's house and on 5.10.2011 at around 8 a.m after finishing his normal duties the petitioner was given movement permission by the Commander for taking salary from the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Aizawl. However, before going to the Bank, he met one Lalsiamlena, MRHG personnel and had proceeded to the Millenium Centre, Aizawl. The petitioner along with the said Lalsiamlena were apprehended by the Security staff of Aizawl Millenium Centre from inside the toilet where Lalsiamlena had given proxyvon injection to the petitioner. A syringe and a white lid cap used for taking injection were recovered from the possession of the petitoner and 133 capsules of parvon spas from the said Lalsiamlena. The petitioner and the said Lalsiamlena were produced at the Aizawl Police Station along with the seized articles by the Security staff of Aizawl Millenium Centre and, accordingly, Aizawl P.S. Case No. 469/2011 dated 5.10.2011 under Section 13 (1) ADC Act, 1950 was registered against them.

(3.) THE petitioner thereafter was placed under suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary enquiry by order dated 7.10.2011 passed by the respondent No. 4. Preliminary enquiry was also conducted against the petitioner and thereafter, disciplinary proceeding was drawn up against the petitioner under Section 7 of Police Act (Act V of 1861) read with Rule 1038 of the Mizoram Police Manual, 2005 by memorandum dated 20.10.2011. The memorandum dated 20.10.2011 was also served upon the petitioner with the direction to submit within 10 days after receipt of the memo, a written statement of his defence and also as to whether he desires to be heard in person. Thereafter, the departmental proceeding proceeded and report of the departmental enquiry was submitted by the enquiry officer. The petitioner was served with notice along with a report of the enquiry officer to submit representation on the enquiry report by letter dated 16.3.2012. Therein, the petitioner was informed to submit representation in respect of the enquiry report and the proposed punishment of removal from service in writing within 15 days after receipt of the letter. The petitioner submitted the representation to the respondent No. 4. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 passed the impugned order dated 17.4.2012 by which the petitioner was awarded punishment of removal from service with immediate effect and his period of suspension from service was treated as not on duty for all purposes. Not being satisfied, the petitioner submitted an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority after considering the matter found no reason to interfere with the order dated 17.4.2012 passed by the disciplinary authority. Being aggrieved the instant writ petition.