Back
2003 Supreme(Gau) 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (AIZAWL BENCH)
P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.
C. Lawihmingthanga – Appellant
Vs.
State of Mizoram and Ors. – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 23 of 2002
Decided On: 04.01.2003
Advocate Appeared
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: C. Lalramzauva, A.R. Malhotra, Helen Dawngliani and R. Lalduhawmi, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: N. Sailo, G.A.
Headnote:
Enquiry Report - Disciplinary Proceedings - CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Rule 14(2), Rule 15(1) - The court discussed the legal provisions of Rule 14(2) and Rule 15(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and their interpretation in the context of remittance of the case for further inquiry and report. The court emphasized the distinction between setting aside an enquiry due to procedural defects and setting it aside because the report does not appeal to the disciplinary authority. The judgment highlighted the principles of natural justice and the employee's right to defend against charges.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a temporary LDC, was suspended and faced departmental and criminal charges. The criminal court acquitted the petitioner, but the departmental enquiry led to his removal from service. The petitioner was denied a copy of the enquiry report, violating principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the remittance of the case for the fourth enquiry was invalid, and the petitioner was denied the right to defend himself. The court set aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement with back wages, allowing for a fresh enquiry if deemed necessary.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the remittance for the fourth enquiry, denial of the petitioner's right to defend, and the impact of the criminal acquittal on the departmental proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of providing the employee with a copy of the enquiry report, the distinction between setting aside an enquiry due to procedural defects and setting it aside because the report does not appeal to the disciplinary authority, and the employee's right to defend against charges.
Final Decision: The order of removal was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated with back wages. The State-Respondents were given the option to conduct a fresh enquiry if deemed necessary.
P.P. Naolekar, C.J.
1. The relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the issues involved in this case are, that the petitioner was temporary appointed as officiating LDC in the scale of pay of Rs. 260-400 p.m. vide order dated 15.4.1978. The petitioner was absorbed in regular vacancy of LDC with effect from 5.5.1978 and thereafter, he was confirmed against a permanent post of LDC with effect from 1.5.1982 vide order dated 11.3.1983. The petitioner was put under suspension in contemplation of the departmental enquiry vide order dated 18.2.1986. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet on 14.5.1986 wherein the petitioner was charged for absenting himself from duty without taking prior permission and that he had failed to maintain the account in respect of sale proceed properly and had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 3,84,862 being supply of sale proceed Biate Group Centre, and lastly, while functioning as LDC he had spent Rs. 7000 being supply of sale proceed of Biate Group Centre for other purposes.
2. The Respondent No. 3, the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl had appointed Sri Lalsawta, District Civil Supply Officer, Aizawl as Enquiry Officer. On 14.5.1986, the petitioner submitted written statement of defence wherein he had specifically denied the charges made against him Sri Lalsawta could to complete the enquiry against the petitioner and in his place Smt. Zohmingthangi, EAC, was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. She also could not complete the enquiry and in her place, Sri Haokhomang Haokip, ADC(P) was again appointed as third Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner vide order dated 28.4.1989. Side by side, with the Departmental enquiry, a Criminal case was also instituted against the petitioner by filling an FIR dated 29.7.1986 at Aizawl Police Station. The said criminal case was registered as GR No. 416/86 under Section 403 IPC. The Criminal case was in regard to the three charges except the charge of absence from duty without taking prior permission and the Criminal Court has acquitted the petitioner from all the charges, as it was found that the accused petitioner committed no offence punishable under Section 409 IPC. No appeal was filed by the respondents challenging the acquittal.
3. The third Enquiry Officer Sh. Haokhomang Haokip, ADC(P), after completing the departmental enquiry had submitted his enquiry report to the Respondent No. 3 who was the disciplinary authority. The enquiry report so submitted by him was not accepted by the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to the 'Rules, 1965') had appointed another Enquiry Officer Shri Tlanglianruma, ADC vide order dated 27.3.1999. It is admitted in the return filed by the respondent State that on receipt of the enquiry report from Shri Haokhomang Haokip, the disciplinary authority found the enquiry proceeding to be incomplete, as a result another Enquiry Officer, namely, Tlanglianruma, EAC was appointed as new Enquiry Officer, in terms of Rule 1965. Shri Tlanglianruma, the fourth Enquiry Officer, had finally concluded the proceedings of the departmental enquiry and submitted his report to the disciplinary authority sometime in the year 1992. After receipt of the enquiry report, the Respondent No. 4, Commissioner of Rural Development, Mizoram, Aizawl has passed and order of removal of the petitioner from service on 19.5.92 under Rule 17(1) of the Rule 1965. This order is under challenge in this writ petition. It is an admitted fact that neither the Enquiry Officer nor the disciplinary authority had furnished copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner.
4. When the Court had asked the learned Additional Advocate General to deliver a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner, he had stated at the Bar that he is unable to do so because the file o
