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 along with 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 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 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 WP(C) No. 40 of 2008. This court, by judgment and order dated 21.7.2008 passed in the WP(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.

4. In compliance of the judgment and order of this court dated 21.7.2008, the petitioner was reinstated back into the service with immediate effect by order dated 12th September, 2008. By an office order dated 1.11.2008, the petitioner was again placed under suspension w.e.f. 1.11.2008 in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding to be initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner was issued memorandum dated 3.11.2008 along with articles of charges, statement of misconduct or misbehavior in support of the articles of charges and list of documents and witnesses by which the article of charges was proposed to be sustained. In the memorandum dated 3.11.2008, the petitioner was directed to submit within ten days of the receipt of the memorandum a written statement of defence and also state whether he desires to be heard in person. The petitioner submitted his written statement on 28.11.2008 and by order dated 4.2.2009 an Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. Thereafter, departmental proceeding proceeded against the petitioner. On conclusion of the said departmental proceeding, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 6.5.2009. The petitioner was also given a copy of the enquiry report and thereafter the proposed penalty was given to the petitioner on 14.7.2009. By order dated 7.8.2009, the petitioner was imposed a penalty of removal from service with immediate effect and his suspension period with effect from 1.11.2008 till the date of issue of the order was treated as "Not on Duty".

5. Being aggriev

Click Here to Read the rest of this document