Michael Zothankhuma, J.

Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, Govt. Advocate for the respondents.

The petitioner has challenged in the present writ petition the impugned order dated 22.07.2013, by which he has been inflicted a minor penalty of "with holding of increment of pay for a period of three years without cumulative effect w.e.f. 01.07.2013".

2. The petitioner has also challenged the rejection of his appeal dated 05.09.2013 vide order dated 13.05.2014 issued by the Governor, Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, DP & AR (CSW).

3. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner was working as Project Director, DRDA, Saiha when he was issued a memorandum of charge dated 02.11.2011. Article 1 and Article 2 of the memorandum of charge dated 02.11.2011 is reproduced below:-

"Statement of Articles of charge framed against Pu N. Chakhai, MCS, Project Director, DRDA, Saiha.

Article-I

While Pu N. Chakhai was functioning as Project Director, DRDA, Saiha during May 2009 - July 2009 a total amount of Rs. 6,08,000/- (Rupees six lakhs eight thousand) was passed under Aministrative cost for purchase of a) LBD Centre Control Unit amounting to Rs. 2,87,900/-(Rupees two lakhs eighty seven thousand nine hundred) and b) Senate Conference Table, Conference Chair amounting to Rs. 3,20,100/- (Rupees three lakhs twenty thousand one hundred). Rs. 8,000/-(Rupees eight thousand) was paid in advance to the supplier. Rs. 6,00,000/-(Rupees six lakhs) was deposited in the personal saving account of Lalthankima, Junior Engineer cum Cashier with the approval of Project Director, DRDA which is against the Financial Rules.

By the above at Pu N. Chakhai, MCS, Project Director, DRDA Saiha violated Rule 22 of the GFR, 2005 and Sub-rule (1)(i)(ii) of Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Article-II

Pu N. Chakhai while functioning as Project Director, DRDA, Saiha, had issued approval for a huge amount of Govt. money amounting to a total of Rs. 4,60,00,000/- (Rupees four crores sixty lakhs) to be deposited in the personal account of Pu Lalthankima, JE cum Cashier, DRDA, Saiha for which he has no authority and is against the rules.

By the above act Pu N. Chakhai, MCS, Project Director, DRDA, Saiha violated Rule 22 of GFR, 2005 and sub-rule (1)(i)(ii) of Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964."

4. The petitioner's counsel submits that the Deputy Commissioner, Saiha, who was the Chariman of the DRDA and the petitioner had allowed the cashier Mr. Lalthankima JE to deposit the unused withdrawn amount of money in his personal Bank Account as there was no place in the main safe located in the Office. The petitioner's counsel submits that this permission given to the cashier to deposit the money in his own account was due to the fact that the Chairman DRDA and the petitioner were out on election duty at the time the cashier wanted to deposit the unused amount of withdrawn money. The petitioner's counsel submits that there was no question of mis-appropriation of any of the amount nor was there any case of mis-appropriation of the interest of the deposited amount.

5. The petitioner's counsel thus submits that in view of the circumstances prevailing at the relevant time, the cashier had deposited the unused withdrawn money in his own account after obtaining the permission of the Chariman DRDA and the petitioner. He submits that there was no mis-conduct committed by the petitioner.

6. The petitioner's counsel submits that he was not allowed to cross examine the witness Rodney Lalrinawma and Inspector B. Lalnghakliana. The petitioner's counsel also submits that even though he was allowed to make a representation against the inquiry report, the petitioner was not given any notice prior to the imposition of the minor penalty. The petitioner's counsel submits that the impugned order dated 22.07.2013 shows that the Vigilance Department and the Mizoram Public Service Commission had been consulted on the quantum of punishme