P. L. ZOHMINGLIANA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned Government Advocate for all the respondents.

(2.) This is the second time the writ petition is before this Court. The earlier writ petition being WP(C) No. 166/2017 was disposed of vide Judgment and Order dtd. 16/7/2019, by setting aside the penalty imposed upon the petitioner while remanding the matter back to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration, after furnishing a copy of the opinion rendered by the Mizoram Public Service Commission (MPSC) on the penalty proposed to be awarded to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner was supplied with a copy of the opinion of the MPSC and he submitted his representation. The disciplinary authority thereafter, vide Order dtd. 19/6/2020, imposed a major penalty of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner under Rule 11 (vii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Following the order, another Order dtd. 16/7/2020 was issued by which the period of suspension of the petitioner was directed to be treated as "not on duty" and not to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. His pay and allowance was also restricted to the subsistence allowance already received by him. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Governor on 12/8/2020 and since the same was not disposed, he again submitted a reminder on 15/10/2020. Consequently, his appeal was disposed of by the Governor and he was intimated about the same vide a covering letter dtd. 10/12/2020. As per the order passed, the decision of the disciplinary authority was not interfered with. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is again before this Court.

(3.) Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the Charge Memorandum dtd. 23/12/2014, the petitioner was charged of having indulged in illegal selling of 150 qtls. of Goverment rice from the FCS and CA Godown, Kolasib during the period from April, 2012 to 10/10/2014. As such, he was charged of having violated Rule 3(1)(i)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The learned counsel submits that he restricts the challenge made and his submission only on the point of discrimination meted out to the petitioner while imposing the penalty upon him, compared to others who committed similar misconduct. To substantiate his submission, Mr. A.R. Malhotra, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph No. 29 of the writ petition, wherein one Mr. J. Vanlalchhuanga, Inspector, Mr. H. Lalruata, Store Keeper, Mr. F. Zirliana, Store Keeper and Mr. F.C. Zohmingliana, Store Keeper, all from the same department, i.e. Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department (FCS and CA) were imposed with a minor penalty in spite of the finding that there was huge shortage of rice and that they were responsible for the shortages. The learned counsel submits that the departmental officials directed recovery of the shortages from the monthly pay of the officials concerned. As such, the present petitioner also having been found to be responsible for the shortages of rice, a similar minor penalty ought to have been imposed upon him and not the major penalty of compulsory retirement. He therefore submits that Court may set aside the impugned orders passed by the respondents and direct imposition of a minor penalty upon the petitioner instead. In support of his submission, Mr. A.R. Malhotra relies upon the Apex Court decision rendered in Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. Vs. Triveni Sharan Mishra, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 346.