IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the dismissal of a government employee for embezzlement, affirming that disciplinary authority's findings are binding unless proven perverse.

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 & Appeal) Rules, 1965, which was initiated by a memorandum dated 03.05.2017. The petitioner was charged with the allegation that he was involved in a serious fraudulent withdrawal, misappropriation and embezzlement of Government’s money as pointed out by the Tour notes dated 06.05.2016 if Shri Lalmuankima, Superintendent of School Education Department and by the report dated 21.12.2016 submitted by the Special Audit Team. The allegation was that the petitioner was involved in fraudulent withdrawal of pay arrears of school teachers’ from the Governments’ treasury on account of the upgradation to senior grade and selection grade. Accordingly, the petitioner was charged for violation of the provisions of Rule 3(1)(i) (ii) (iii) and rule 3-C of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, Rule 21 of the General Financial Rules and Section 13 (C) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4. The petitioner had submitted his statement of defence through his defence assistant wherein the charge leveled against him was denied how the department continued with the departmental proceeding. During the proceedings, 2 (two) State witnesses were examined and thereafter the Inquiring Authority upon completing the inquiry, submitted the Inquiry Report dated 16.03.2018, wherein it was concluded that the charges leveled against the petitioner was proved. The petitioner in response to the inquiry report submitted his written representation as per Rule 15(2) of CCS (CCA) Rules wherein he denied all the charges made out against him and submitted that there was no particular mention of the involvement petitioner in the report submitted by the Special Audit Report and also stated that he never served as Bill Assistant during his entire service in the office of SDEO, Darlawn. And that the fraudulent bills were not made during his term as a Cashier. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 being the disciplinary authority found it fit to pass the impugned order dated 13.09.2019 against the petitioner imposing the major penalty of ‘Dismissal from Office’. Being aggrieved the petitioner preferred a review under Rule 29 of CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 before the respondent No. 1. The said appeal was reviewed on 08.06.2020 by the office of respondent No. 1 and subsequently disposed of by respondent No. 1 by the impugned order dated 12.02.2021 wherein the impugned order dated 13.09.2019 was upheld. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed the instant writ appeal against the said impugned orders.

5. Mr. B. Lalramenga learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellant was not involved in the said embezzlement of money as made out in the charges against him since the appellant was not the cashier from 2014-2016. He further submits that from the deposition of the State witnesses, he