JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents.

2. The petitioner, by way of this writ petition, has prayed for setting aside the letter dated 12.11.2012, by which the petitioner’s request for regularization in terms of the Regularisation of Muster Roll Employees Mizoram Scheme, 2000 has been declined. The petitioner has also put to challenge the impugned Order dated 22.05.2013 issued by the respondent No. 2, whereby it has been held that the petitioner who is a Muster Roll employee, does not deserve to be reengaged.

3. The facts of the case in brief is that the petitioner had been engaged as a Muster Roll worker in the Mizoram House, Silchar, Assam since 15.04.1998. However, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide impugned Order dated 27.04.2012 issued by the respondent No. 3, on account of a lost key that went missing from a bunch of keys pertaining to the Dak Bungalow building of Mizoram House, Silchar. The said key was found in the possession of the petitioner and was retrieved from the top drawer of the desk, as pointed out by the petitioner. The petitioner was thus dismissed from service as LDC (MR) on the ground of his integrity was found to be doubtful and as he was found to be untrustworthy.

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed WP(C) No. 54/2012 before this Court praying that the impugned Order dated 27.04.2012 should be set aside, as no notice/opportunity of hearing had been provided to the petitioner. WP(C) No. 54/2012 was disposed of vide Order dated 03.09.2012 by this Court, wherein it was held that the order being stigmatic and as no notice was issued to the petitioners, the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to have his say before passing of the dismissal order.

5. This Court thus, set aside the impugned dismissal order. This Court further held that the respondents were to look into the prayer of the petitioner for regularization in terms of the Regularisation of Muster Roll Employees Mizoram Scheme, 2000.

6. In compliance with the Order dated 03.09.2012 passed in WP(C) No. 54/2012, the respondents issued the impugned Order dated 12.11.2012, stating that the petitioner’s request for regularization was declined, as only 25% of the sanctioned post could be filled up from eligible Muster Roll employees who had rendered not less than 7 years in terms of para 4(iii) of the Regularisation of Muster Roll Mizoram Scheme, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 2000 Scheme). As there was only 1 post of LDC in Mizoram House, Silchar, 25% of 1 post rounded off to the nearest digit worked out to be ‘zero’. Thus, no post was available, which could be filled up under the quota of regularization.

7. The respondents thereafter issued a show cause notice dated 21.11.2012 to the petitioner stating that his acts and commissions were grave misconducts unbecoming of a Government servant and the same exhibited his unfitness and lack of integrity for service under the Government of Mizoram. He was therefore, directed to give a reply to the show cause notice as to why he should be re-engaged as LDC on Muster Roll basis. The acts and commissions enumerated as grave misconducts in the show cause notice dated 21.11.2012 is reproduced below:-

“That Pu Z. Khawzawl knowingly and secretly detached the key of the Liaison Officer’s Office door-lock from the bunch of keys kept in the room of the Liaison Officer on 26.4.2012. There was no reason for doing so unless he intends to enter the L.O’s Office Chamber with ulterior motives”.

“That Pu Z. Khawzawl had aided one guest of Mizoram House Silchar to access the Office Computer in the Establishment room in the morning before opening of office, without prior permission of the concerned authority”.

“That Pu Z. Khawzawl had, time and again, threatened his colleagues with dire consequences inspite of having been reprimanded by the Liaison Officer on several occasions”.

“That Pu Z.