Z.R. REMTLUANGA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P.C. Prusty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned Addl. A.G., Mizoram for the State respondents.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Constable by order dated 14.11.2000 and was confirmed in the said post by order dated 24.4.2003 w.e.f. 1.12.2002. While the petitioner was serving as Constable, he started suffering from pain and had to undergo treatment in the month of July, 2006. As there was aggravation with his pain despite taking treatment, he proceeded for further treatment by a doctor at Aizawl. The doctor treating the petitioner suspected Sciatica (early stage) and was advised for a revisit again on 4.8.2006. The petitioner, therefore, verbally applied for leave to visit his physician at Aizawl but the same was not granted and petitioner was instead directed to proceed to Vairengte to join training at CIJW and he accordingly moved on 4.8.2006. During the training petitioner s health deteriorated and he was unable to attend further training. He was bedridden and had to stay in the barrack by taking treatment from the M.O., 2nd IR Battalion. By a letter dated 6th September, 2006, the Commandant 1st IR Battalion addressed to the petitioner alongwith 9 (nine) others directed them that as they have reported that they were unfit at the training school at Vairengte, CIJW they were directed to submit as to whether they are really unfit or not within 2 (two) days from the date of receipt of the letter. The petitioner was still sick and his condition worsened and therefore, he could not join his colleagues when they made their way for Chhattisgarh from Mualvum. The petitioner received a calling notice dated 10.10.2006 asking him to resume his duties within 3 (three) days from the date of receipt of the calling letter. The petitioner tried to submit joining report on 30.10.2006 but he was not allowed to submit joining report and instead an order dated 30.10.2006 was served upon the petitioner whereby the petitioner was imposed a penalty of removal from service.

(3.) Being aggrieved by his removal from service by the order dated 30.10.2006, he had approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) No. 40 of 2008. This Court, by judgment and order dated 21.7.2008 passed in the W.P.(C) No. 40 of 2008 had set aside the order dated 30.10.2006 but the door was kept open to the respondents to initiate departmental proceeding against the writ petitioner, if so advised.