Back
MARLI VANKUNG
R. Lalrema S/o R. Mangliana (L) – Appellant
Versus
Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MARLI VANKUNG, J.
1. Heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the petitioner along with Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents.
2. The instant writ petition is preferred to challenge the impugned order number C.31015/5/2016 - EDM/369 Dated 30.09.2019 and the corrigendum dated 29.05.2020 issued by the respondent No. 2/Education Department by which a major penalty of ‘Dismissal from Service’ was imposed upon the petitioner after the Department inquiry was conducted against him. The instant writ petition is also challenging the impugned order dated 30.09.2019 issued by respondent No. 1 wherein his appeal was rejected by the appellant authority.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Education Department by order dated 05.03.1992 and joined the post at Chhimtuipui District, Siaha. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) vide order dated 28.07.2015 and posted in the office of SDEO, Darlawn. While the petitioner was serving in the post of UDC an inquiry conducted against him under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (CCS) (Classification, Control &
The court upheld the dismissal of a government employee for embezzlement, affirming that disciplinary authority's findings are binding unless proven perverse.
The court emphasized that it would be unjust, unfair, and oppressive to allow the findings in the departmental proceedings to stand when the case against the petitioner could not be established in a ....
: Service – Punishment - once the charges levelled against the delinquent employee are proved then it is for the appointing authority to decide as to what punishment should be imposed on the delinque....
Point of Law : It would not be safe to rely on the examination-in-chief recorded which was not subjected to cross examination before the summon was made.
Judicial review in departmental proceedings is limited to ensuring procedural fairness, not evaluating the merits of evidence. The disciplinary authority's conclusions, supported by some evidence, ar....
The court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and parity in disciplinary actions, reducing the punishment from dismissal to withholding increments.
The court upheld the dismissal of a public servant for misappropriation of funds, citing the lack of violation of natural justice and the adequacy of the disciplinary proceedings.
The Disciplinary Authority can order further enquiry only if serious defects exist in the initial enquiry; it cannot do so after a finding of exoneration.
A disciplinary authority can impose severe penalties such as removal from service when misappropriation of funds is established through admission and evidence, without violating principles of natural....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
