Heard Mr. H. Lalrinthanga, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.T. Vaiphei, learned Assistant Advocate General. In order to have some clarification as regards the departmental proceedings taken against the writ petitioner in 1983, an attempt has been made to have the relevant record/file available before I dictate order today. I have been informed by learned Assistant Advocate General that the particular file relating to the enquiry of the year 1983 is not readily available as regards to the question whether some reasons were recorded by the competent authority before the issuance of the order of termination. 2. The writ petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer by order dated 18th August, 1978 in the scale of pay of Rs. 425- Rs.700 PM plus other allowances as admissible under the Rules against one of the existent vacant posts of Junior Engineer (Mech) under Aizawl Mechanical Sub Division. The said appointment e was made on ad hoc basis and for a short period subject to regularisation in accordance with recruitment rules to be approved by the Govt in due course. A subsequent notification dated 21st March, 1979 was issued in which the Lt Governor of Mizoram was pleased to appoint the writ petitioner, BE (Mech) as Assistant Engineer with effect from the date of his joining to the post on a temporary basis in the scale of pay of Rs.650-Rs.1,200 PM plus all other allowances as admissible and sanctioned from time to time and posted him as SDO, Aizawl PHE, Sub-Division No.2. Para 3 of the said appointment states "The officer will be on probation for a period of 2 years from the date of his, joining to the post." 3. While serving as Assistant Engineer consequent to the appointment to the said post as stated above, a Govt memorandum was issued on 10th May, 1980 proposing to hold an enquiry against the Writ petitioner, directing him to submit within 15 days of the receipt of the memorandum a written statement of his defence and also to state whether he desired to be heard in person. There was only one article of charge brought against the writ petitioner; The charge reads: "Shri Zohmingliana while functioning as SDO, PHE Aizawl Sub- Division No.JJ, Aizawl on 20th February, 1980 took out the Govt Jeep No.ZRG 677 with his driver Shri Siama and witnessed the Hockey final match and then in the evening went to Thakthing Damveng. After taking liquor in the house of Shri Vawra he proceeded to his home and while climbing the road reading to ChaMang, the petrol in the jeep was exhausted near the Emergency Water Supply Pump House No.4 and then the jeep was driven back to Chandmari side upto Shri Lalthuama's house. He left the jeep at the spot at about 8.30 PM-9 PM without taking proper care of it and without any guard, and directed the driver to accompany him upto Chaltlang. The jeep was stolen by some miscreants and it was burnt on the same night (in the night of 20.2.8Q/ 2.12.80). Shri Zohmingliana by his above acts exhibited lack of integrity and devotion to duty and thereby violated sub-clause (i) and (ii) of Rule 3 and Rule 22 of the Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964." Written statement was submitted by the writ petitioner. Shri Robula, the then Superintending Engineer, PHE Circle, Aizawl was appointed as Inquiry Officer to enquire into the charge framed against the writ petitioner vide order of appointment issued by the Secretary on 8th November, 1980. The Inquiry Officer submitted report on 21st June, 1982. Relevant for the purpose of the disposal of the writ petition are paragraphs 38 and 39 of the said report. They read : "38. As mentioned above there is no proof that, Shri Zohmingliana witnessed the Hockey Final Match and drunk liquor at Pu Vawras house on 20.2.80. 39. Shri Zohmingliana did not try at his level best to place his vehicle at a safe place, ie at PHE workshop near the place where the vehicle was out of order. Moreover, he did not tell his driver to remain in the jeep or to watch over his jeep. Due to his carelessness the jeep was taken by some miscreant and burnt which caused the lost of the Govt to Rs. 2,715/-. Therefore, the charge is proof in this case. 4. Moreover, he did not tell his driver to remain in the jeep or to watch over his jeep. Due to his carelessness the jeep was taken by some miscreant and burnt which caused the lost of the Govt to Rs. 2,715/-. Therefore, the charge is proof in this case. 4. On the basis of the enquiry report the Secretary to the Govt of Mizoram issued an order on 13th October, 1982 by which the penalty of Rs. 1,128 was imposed and the said penalty was directed to be recovered from the monthly salary of the writ petition in 5 equal installments of Rs. 215/- and 1 instalment of Rs. 53.50. The said recovery was to start from the salary bill of the writ petitioner for the month of October, 1982. The said order is at Annexure 8 and it reads : "No. CON 87/PW/Pt 1/58: Whereas enquiries under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 have been held against Shri Zohmingliana, Assistant Engineer, Mechanical Division, Aizawl on the charges drawn vide memorandum issued under CON 877PW/80/11 dated 10.5.80. 2. And whereas, on a careful consideration of the enquiry reports and the representation submitted by Shri Zohmingliana vide his letter No. CON/LM/80/3 dated 24.9.80 the Lt Governor (Administrator) of Mizoram agrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer in the case and holds that the charges are proved. 3. Now, therefore, in exercise 6f the powers conferred by sub-rule 2) of Rule 12 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 the Lt Governor (Administrator) of Mizoram hereby orders the imposition of the penalty of recovery of Rs. 1,128.50 (Rupees tine thousand one hundred twenty eight and paise fifty) only from the pay and allowances of Shri Zohmingliana, Assistant Engineer, Mechanical Division as the partial recovery of loss caused to the Govt due to negligence of duties by the said Shri Zohmingliana. 4. The aforesaid recovery will be effected from the monthly salary of Shri Zohmingliana in 5 (five) equal installments of Rs. 215.00 and one instalment of Rs. 53.50. The recovery should start from the salary bill of the officer for the month of October, 1982." It may be stated that the entire penalty as imposed on the writ petitioner was recovered from the salary bill as mentioned in the order aforesaid. 5. 215.00 and one instalment of Rs. 53.50. The recovery should start from the salary bill of the officer for the month of October, 1982." It may be stated that the entire penalty as imposed on the writ petitioner was recovered from the salary bill as mentioned in the order aforesaid. 5. After the recovery of the penalty was completed, an order of termination of the service of the petitioner came to be issued by the Secretary on 23rd . March, 1983 to the following effect: "In pursuance of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, the Lt Governor (Administrator) of Mizoram hereby gives notice to Shri Zohmingliana, Assistant Engineer, Mechanical Division, Aizawl that his services shall stand terminated with effect from the date of expiry of a period of one month from the date on which this notice is served on him”. 6. The petitioner submitted a representation/appeal against the order of termination to the Secretary, PWD on 1 8.4.83. As no action was taken on the said representation, further representations/reminders were submitted to the competent authority. The writ petitioner waited for some response from the competent/ appellate authority for about 11 (eleven) years. There was no response. 7. Some time in the year 1987, the writ petitioner was given appointment as Work Manager under Transport Department on ad hoc basis and the petitioner is continuing in the said post without any change of conditions of service till date. Mr. Lalrinthanga, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that after his service was terminated in March, 1983, the writ petitioner faced great hardship and he was not able to support himself, wife and children. Hence four years after the termination, the writ petitioner somehow got the ad hoc employment under Transport Department. 8. The petitioner, though employed under the Transport Department from 1987, continued to pursue his representation and insisted that his appeal/ representation should be disposed of by the competent authority. However as he failed to obtain any relief as the competent authority did not dispose of his representation, at last he approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in Civil Rule No. 31 of 1994. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 1.10.96. However as he failed to obtain any relief as the competent authority did not dispose of his representation, at last he approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in Civil Rule No. 31 of 1994. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 1.10.96. The petitioner was directed to make a fresh representation in the line of the earlier representation and also the appropriate authority was directed to consider such representation within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the said fresh representation. In this regard paragraphs 5 and 6 of this Court's order may be extracted : "5. In course of hearing it is found that the petitioner made an appeal petition dated 18.4.83 (Annexure X to the writ petition) and several others representations/reminders which are at Annexures XII, XIII and IV to the writ petition. So far the respondent Govt have not considered these representations. The learned Assistant Advocate General has also not disputed this. I am of the opinion that it will be just proper and expedient if the competent appellate authority considers the case of the petitioner even now. 6. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation in the line of the earlier representations referred to above, within a period of 14 days from today. Thereafter, the appropriate authority of use respondent Govt shall consider and decide the matter within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the fresh representation to be filed by the petitioner." The writ petitioner submitted fresh representation on 14.10.96. At long last the representation/appeal filed by the writ petitioner was rejected by the competent 'authority on 12th June, 1997. At long last the representation/appeal filed by the writ petitioner was rejected by the competent 'authority on 12th June, 1997. A copy of which is now available at Annexure 19 which is also follows: "No. C 18011/1(6)94-PW: Whereas the service of Pu Zohmingliana, Assistant Engineer, PWD was terminated under Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 by the Lt Governor of Mizoram vide No. CON 90/PW/80/63 dated 23.3.83 And whereas the said Pu Zohmingliana submitted a representation dated 14.10.1996 to the Chief Secretary in terms of judgment and order of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court dated 1.10.1996 in CR No. 31 of 1994 And whereas, the Governor of Mizoram, on careful consideration of the points raised in the said representation has held that the said termination from service dated 23.3.1983 was independent of the departmental proceedings instituted in 1980 which was concluded on 13.10.1982, and that the said Pu Zohmingliana could not claim the status of quasi permanent in absence of declaration as such during the relevant period of time, and held further that the said Pu Zohmingliana could not be treated as automatically confirmed at the end of his extended period of probation. Now, therefore, the Governor of Mizoram, in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 5 (2) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 hereby confirms the said termination order dated 23.3.1983." 9. Mr. Lalrinthanga submits that the order of termination is illegal and not suitable inasmuch as if sustained, it would amount to double jeopardy as far as the writ petitioner is concerned. This argument is based on the ground that full enquiry was made against the charge levelled against the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner was found guilty of the charge brought against him. He was imposed a fine which was fully recovered from the salary bill of the writ petitioner. Therefore, the writ petitioner suffered the punishment inflicted upon him as a result of the enquiry report. If termination of the service of the writ petitioner was the intention of the Govt it could have been done the moment a finding of guilty was established against the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner was not placed under suspension during the period of enquiry and even after the order of punishment of recovery of Rs. 1,128.50 was imposed and he was allowed to continue in service till the full recovery was made. 10. The writ petitioner was not placed under suspension during the period of enquiry and even after the order of punishment of recovery of Rs. 1,128.50 was imposed and he was allowed to continue in service till the full recovery was made. 10. On the other hand Mr. T, Vaiphei, learned Assistant Advocate General submits that in terms of the appointment issued in favour of the writ petitioner in 1979, the order of termination cannot be held to be illegal, inasmuch as the writ petitioner as holding only temporary post. Mr. Lalringthanga submits that the case of the writ petitioner would not at all come within the purview of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, inasmuch as he had already completed three years period of probation when the order of termination was issued. Jt may be stated that initially the period of probation was fixed at 2, years, but subsequently it was extended by another 1 year. 11. I have given very anxious consideration to the entire facts and circumstances leading to the present case. I have also heard Mr. Lalrinthanga, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Mr. T. Vaiphei, learned Assistant Advocate General at length. It seems very clear to me that the order of termination was issued as a result of the enquiry report in which the writ petitioner was found guilty. It that be so, as I have stated above, the petitioner was imposed a fine as punishment for the offence he committed. After the punishment was inflicted upon the writ petitioner, it would be most unreasonable and unfair that he should have been terminated from service. Such action, in my view, would clearly amount to double jeopardy. I see no reasonable ground for inflicting another punishment of termination from service. This is uncalled for. It may also be stated that the service of the petitioner had already attained quasi permanent status, inasmuch as he had already completed the period of probation of three years when the impugned order of termination was issued. If that is so, the petitioner could not have been terminated by taking recourse to sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. 12. If that is so, the petitioner could not have been terminated by taking recourse to sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. 12. Learned Assistant Advocate General submits that there is inordinate delay on the part of the writ petitioner in seeking remedy before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and on this score of delay alone, justice, if any, should be defeated and no remedy should be made available to him at this belated stage. According to Mr. Vaiphei, delay is attributable to the writ petitioner. In my view this submission cannot be accepted as on this day when I am hearing the writ petitioner as regards his grievance after the delay was already condoned in a way because of the direction issued by this Court in Civil Rule 31 of 1994 which was disposed of on 1.10.96. 13. In the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned order of termination issued on 23rd March, 1983 is quashed. The writ petitioner shall be reinstated in his original post. Let the reinstatement of the writ petitioner be effective from 1st December, 1999. In view of the very peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the writ petitioner shall not be entitled to any back wages. However, the period from the date of termination till 30th November, 1999 shall be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. In facts that circumstances of this case, determination of inter se seniority regards the writ petitioner is left to the wisdom of the competent authority. The parties are to bear their own costs.