Back
2018 Supreme(Gau) 929
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI AT AIZAWL BENCH
SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO, J.
Sh. T. Hrilliana - Appellant
Vs.
State of Mizoram Represented by Chief Secretary to Govt. of Mizoram - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 18 of 2018
Decided On : 20-09-2018
Lalpianfela Chawngthu, Adv., Zoramchhana, Adv., Lalhmingsanga Hmar, Adv., Lalrinchhani, Adv., Lalfakzuali, Adv., Mary L Khiangte, Adv.
Headnote:
Constitution of India 1950 - Article 226 - Rules 1965 – Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rule 14 - Served with a memo of charge - Misappropriation of public money - During aforesaid period and while functioning in aforesaid office said clearly knew that he holds a position of where honesty integrity are inbuilt requirements functioning post he hold - He also knew that he dealt with public money engaged in financial transactions or acts in fiduciary capacity highest degree of integrity and trust witness must and unexceptionable –Held, True that strict rules of limitation does not apply in writ jurisdiction however delay must be explained and should be reasonable - This principles of law has been established by catena of judgments passed by Apex Court like in case cited by Government Advocate New Delhi Municipal Council Pan Singh and Others - In case petitioner did not even offer explanation for delay only reason given by him that Grade employee and therefore not aware of provisions of law – This reasonable explanation as required by settled principle of law - After all ignorance of law cannot be accepted as an explanation for delay – Petition dismissed
S. Sertom, J.
Heard Mr. Lalpianfela Chawngthu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Mary. L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
2. Facts and circumstances leading to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated are as follows:-
While the petitioner was serving as Store Keeper under the Office of District Civil Supply Officer, Champhai, he was suspended from service vide Order No. C. 14013/2/07- DTE(SPY)CONF/4, dated 12.04.2007 issued by the Director, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Government of Mizoram in contemplation of a departmental inquiry against him. Soon thereafter, he was served with a memo of charge dated 29.10.2007 vide Office Memo No. C.14013/2/07-DTE(SPY)CONF/85 by the Director of the same department under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The charge against the petitioner as per the Articles of charge given in the Annexure-I of the memorandum are as follows:-
"ANNEXURE I
STATEMENT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST PU T. HRILLIANA SK (Offg) (U/S)
ARTICLE I
That the said Pu. T. Hrilliana SK (Offg)(u/s) while functioning as the Godown in charge at Farkawn during the period from 1st Oct/2007, shortage of Govt. foodstuff as mentioned below for which he was solely responsible, has been detected on 31st March/2007 during handing and taking over of the Godown charge between himself as relieved officer and Pu. R. Lalrimtuia SK as relieving officer.
Sl No.
Name of Commodity
Quantity of shortage
Rate
per quintal
Value of shortage
1
Grade ‘A’ Rice
3928.04 qtls
Rs.930/-
3653077.20
2.
‘C’ rice
351.74 qtls
Rs.830/-
Rs.291944.20
3.
Sugar
0.29 qtls
Rs.1343.94/-
Rs.390/-
4.
Sale Proceeds (Cash)
Rs.16,36,754.00/-
On further scrutiny of the Accounts.
It has been revealed the actual discrepancies as shown below
1.
Grade ‘A’ rice
5704.99 qtls
Rs.930/-
Rs.5,305,640.70/-
2.
‘C’ rice
216.63 qtls
Rs.830/-
Rs.1,79,802.90/-
3.
Sugar
2.88 qtls
Rs.1343.94/-
Rs.3870.54/-
4.
Sale Proceed (Cash)
Rs.15,27,245.00/-
Total
Rs.70,16,559.14/-
(Rupees seventy lakhs sixteen thousand five hundred fifty nine and fourteen paise) only.
The above misappropriation of public money has straightaway has clearly showed that Pu. T. Hrilliana SK (Offg)(u/s) has totally lack integrity and dishonestly served his employer.
Thus, the said Pu. T. Hrilliana SK (Offg)(u/s) is charged to have acted in contradiction of Rule 3 (1)(i)(ii)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.
ARTICLE II
That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Pu. T. Hrilliana SK clearly knew that, he holds a position of truct where honesty and WP(C) No. 18 of 2018 Page 4 of 16 integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning the post he hold. He also knew that he dealt with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, highest degree of integrity and trust withness is must and unexceptionable. But the said Pu. T. Hrilliana SK (Offg)(u/s) knowingly ignored the above nature of conduct. In contradiction he dishonestly served the Govt. with intension of wrongful gain for his personal benefit.
Right from the first month of his tenure, i.e. Oct'01 the said Pu. T. Hrilliana SK (Offg)(u/s) did not fully deposited sale proceeds he realized retaining Rs. 32,894.00/-, and continuously retaining the publ
