STATE OF SIKKIM Vs. MANI KUMAR SUBBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the office order bearing no.1615/G/DOP, dtd. 25/9/2018, of the Govt. of Sikkim, Deptt. of Personnel, ADM. Reforms, Training and Public Grievances, Gangtok (hereinafter, 'DOPART'), terminating the government service of the respondent could have been modified to one of compulsory retirement by the same department, vide office order bearing no.6001/G/DOP, dtd. 27/2/2019, sans consultation by the Governor with the Sikkim Public Service Commission (hereinafter, 'SPSC').

(2.) Before delving into the merits of the matter, it is essential to put forth a brief summation of the facts that led to the discord between the parties herein.

(3.) (a) The learned single Judge inter alia discussed the provisions of Rules 10 and 11 of the D&A Rules and observed that, the Governor, while revisiting the order of dismissal from service dtd. 25/9/2018, invoked Rule 10, exercising the powers conferred on him, considered the quantum of punishment imposed on the respondent and found it to be harsh. Pursuant thereto, the penalty was reduced to one of compulsory retirement, allowing him retirement pension, in accordance with the Sikkim (Pension) Rules, 1990. The learned single Judge was of the view that Rule 10 of the D&A Rules permits the Governor, on his own motion, to call for the records of the inquiry or revise any order made after consultation with the SPSC, where such consultation is necessary or whenever he deems it necessary. In such view of the matter, the office order dtd. 27/2/2019, passed in favour of the respondent cannot be assailed on the sole ground that the commission was not consulted. It was noticed that even after the passing of the office order dtd. 27/2/2019, the appellants took no steps to challenge or undo it, till the writ petition was filed on 17/11/2022 by the respondent.