R KAPZAUVA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order dated 16. 01. 2006 bearing Memo No. C. 18011/14/2003 - EDN, Part-I issued by the Principal Secretary, Government of Mizoram, School Education imposing minor penalty to the petitioner with holding his promotion for a period of 5 (five) years with immediate effect and dismissal of the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner on 01. 02. 2006 before the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Aizawl vide order dated 24. 05. 2007 under Memo No. C. 18011/14/2003-EDN, Part-I under the hand and seal of the Principal Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, School Education are the subject matters of challenge in this present petition.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Circle Education Officer (for short CEO) on 10. 03. 1981 and since then he had been discharging his duties dedicatedly and with strong devotion. Vide order dated 24. 09. 1990 the petitioner was confirmed to the post of CEO in SDEO West. Vide notification dated 23. 12. 1996 the petitioner was promoted to the post of ADEO, Aizawl West and thereafter transferred to the SDEO, Aizawl East-I and while discharging his duties as such he was served with a Memorandum of Charges dated 03. 12. 2003 proposing to hold an inquiry against him and two other persons by a common proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The said Memorandum was accompanied by article of charges, which are reproduced as under:

(3.) HAVING been received the Article of Charges along with the Memorandum, the writ petitioner submitted his written statement of defence on 22. 12. 2003 wherein he denied all the charges. An Inquiry Officer was appointed to hold an inquiry to the article of charges brought against this writ petitioner and two others. The Inquiry Officer during the course of inquiry had given reasonable opportunity to the writ petitioner as well as others two to project their cases in other words defend them as against the article of charges. The Inquiry Officer after due submitted the inquiry report holding that Charge No. 1 and Charge No. 3 have been proved against the writ petitioner and two others, while Charge No. 2 is stated to have been partially proved. The disciplinary authority after receipt of the inquiry report issued a second show cause to the writ petitioner and two others as to why punishment should not be awarded against them. The delinquent officers including the writ petitioner submitted their respective explanation wherein the writ petitioner admitted that he put his signature in two bills on two different occasions. The disciplinary authority after due consideration of the explanation so submitted by the delinquent officer including the findings of the Inquiry Officer, awarded punishment as herein before stated with-holding their promotion for five years.