T TULZATHANG Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed to quash the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur dated 24.4.85 (Annexure-A, 2) imposing the penalty of dismissal from service.

(2.) The brief facts are as follows: The petitioner was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the Revenue Department, Government of Manipur with effect from 9.2.67. He was later promoted as Upper Division Clerk which was regularised on 20.5.82. The petitioner was posted as the Head Clerk cum-Cashier in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Churachandpur and thereafter he was transfered to the office of the Deputy Commissioner. Churachandpur in March. 1984 and posted as Upper Division Clerk (Revenue). The petitioner was placed under suspension on 19.4.84 and thereafter a departmental enquiry was initiated vide Annexure-A 2. Along with the charges, documents and the list of witnesses were provided to the petitioner. The petitioner did not file any written statement against this charge-sheet. The enquiry was fixed on 14.10.85 and on 14.10.85 the petitioner along with a medical certificate prayed for adjournment of the hearing. The Medical Certificate which is Annexure- A/3 reads as follows: Medical Certificate : Certified that Mr. Tualzathang, aged about 45 years has been suffering from chronic peptic ulcer and is under treatment. He is advised rest for 30 (thirty) days with effect from 14.10.86. The Enquiry Officer granted adjournment and next date was fixed for hearing on 21.10.85. On 21.10/85 also an application for adjournment was filed by the petitioner. The next date of the enquiry was fixed on 29.10.85 and on that date also the petitioner filed an application for adjournment. The next date was fixed on 4.11.85 and on that date also an application for adjournment was filed. The last date was fixed on 18.11.85 and on that date also an application for adjournment was filed. By Annexure-A/5. On 28th October, 1985 the Sub-Divisional Officer, Churachandpur wrote to the District Medical Officer, Churachandpur as follows: Sir, With reference to the subject indicated above I am to enclose herewith a true copy of Medical Certificate produced to this Office by Shri T. Tualzathang, U.D.C. (now under suspension) for verification of its genuineness. The patient who has been advised bedrest has been seen in a healthy condition roaming in the town., The same may please be treated as most urgent. As the adjournment was not granted, the Enquiry Officer completed the enquiry in the absence of the petitioner. Thereafter on 2nd December, 1985 vide Annexure-A/7/1 the petitioner applied that the witnesses who were examined behind his back may be recalled and he may be allowed a chance to cross-examine them for the ends of fairplay and justice. By Annexure-A/7/2 on 9th December, 1985! the petitioner refused to file any statement of defence as his earlier application for re-calling the witnesses was not granted. On 9th January, 1986 the petitioner vide Annexure-A/7/ 3 filed an application with the following prayers: (i) to inspect the papers, documents. (ii) to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses iii) to allow him to inspect the orders passed in day to day hearing in the proceeding so as to enable him to prepare his defence statement. Earlier to it, on 3rd October, 1985 he filed an application to direct the Presenting Officer to [produce certain records as mentioned in the application filed at the time: of enquiry. All these prayers were rejected by the Enquiry Officer vide Annexure-A/9 on 9th January, 1986. Thereafter the enquiry report was submitted vide Annexure-A/11 on 11th March, 1986 and the detailed report running into 15 pages the Enquiry Officer inter alia found as follows: (a) Shri. T. Tiualzathang sold loan forms @ Rs. 1/- per form to the public without authority. (b) Shri T. Tiualzathang earned a sum of Rs. 415/- by using his station in the Government. (c) Shri T, Tudzathang, while functioning as a Cashier in SDO, Churachandpur's office received a sum of Rs. 19,339.58 only as Govt. collection and did not deposit the said amount in the Govt. treasury thereby misappropriating the Government money. Thereafter the matter was sent to the Disciplinary Authority and the Disciplinary authority vide Annexure-A/12 considered the whole matter afresh and in a detailed order running into 8 pages he found inter alia as follows: As disciplinary authority under Rule 12 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965, I accept the Inquiry Report of SDO/Churachandpur. Since the charges are of extremely serious matter and have been proved beyond reasonable doubt, it is clear that the delinquent official has acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant in violation of the service conduct rules. By his unbecoming conduct he has not only misused his official position for illegal personal gain but has alsco caused a loss of Rs 19,399.58 to the Government. Having arrived at this finding, the petitioner was dismissed from service. There was an appeal ami that appeal was also rejected vide Annexure-A/ 13 as it was time barred. Hence, this writ application.

(3.) I have heard Sri T. Gogonchandra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L. Shyamkishore Singh, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondents.