Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 28 (GAU)

R. Lalbiakthanga v. State of Mizoram

2001-02-12

D.BISWAS

body2001
Heard Mr. G. Raju, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Mr. T Vaiphei, the learned Additional Advocate General, Mizoram. 2. In this petition, the order dated 13.5.92 (Annexure VHI) passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl District directing recovery of supply sale proceeds allegedly misappropriated by the writ petitioner has been challenged. 3. Shri Raju, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the writ petitioner while posted as Administrative Officer at Kawnpui was charged with the offence of misappropriation and placed under suspension on 18.8.87. In the meantime, the matter was also referred to police and two criminal proceedings were initiated. Thereafter, the suspension order of the petitioner was revoked by an order passed on 224.89 and he has been allowed to continue as Administrative Officer at Kawnpui as before. The criminal proceedings initiated were disposed of in 1998 and 1999 and the writ petitioner was acquitted in both the cases. After about three years, the impugned order has been issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner directing recovery without taking recourse to; the provisions of law embodied in Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. His further contention is that the office memorandum dated 27.8.91 issued by the Vigilance Department for recovery of outstanding liabilities of Govt servants is contrary to the provisions of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1965. Shri Raju, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that without initiation of a departmental proceeding and without recording a finding of guilt the order for recovery could not be passed since rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 envisaged recovery of Govt amount by way of imposition of penalty only. 4. Mr. T. Vaiphei, the learned Additional Advocate General, however, controverted the submission of Mr. Raju on the ground that the Govt amount to the tune of Rs. 7 lakhs has been misappropriated by the writ petitioner and during the course of a preliminary inquiry he also admitted his liability to refund the same. 5.1 have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective submission of the learned counsel for both the parties. 6. It would appear that the relationship between the writ petitioner and the State Govt is that of master and servant and the same is to be guided in all spheres "- by the rules applicable. 5.1 have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective submission of the learned counsel for both the parties. 6. It would appear that the relationship between the writ petitioner and the State Govt is that of master and servant and the same is to be guided in all spheres "- by the rules applicable. The CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is an exhaustive regulation providing the mode and manner in which a delinquent employee has to be dealt with. Rule 11 provides for penalties to be imposed on conclusion of departmental proceedings. Recovery of any pecuniary loss caused to the Govt by negligence or breach of orders has been prescribed as one of the minor penalties. Obviously, this penalty by way of recovery of Govt money could not be imposed without taking recourse to the oilier provisions of the Rules of 1965. This means that a regular departmental proceeding ought to have been initiated in the instant case for determining the responsibility of the writ petitioner. Unless the above provisions are complied with, the order dated 13.5,92 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner relying on the Govt order dated 27.8.91 cannot be sustained in law. 7. It is an admitted fact that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the writ petitioner on 8.11.99 and the writ petitioner also submitted his written statement in the month of December, 1999. The said proceeding is still pending. It would, therefore, be appropriate in the given circumstances of this case to direct the respondent to conclude the enquiry without further loss of time and, on conclusion thereof, if it is found that the petitioner is guilty, then any of the penalties provided in Rule 11 including recovery may be imposed by the disciplinary authority in their discretion. Hence, the impugned notification dated 13.5.92 (Annexure VIII) has to be quashed. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order referred above is hereby quashed. Further recovery be stopped until conclusion of the departmental proceedings. 9. The respondents are directed to complete the departmental proceedings without further loss of time and to take actions as indicated above. The amount already recovered from the pay and allowances of the writ petitioner shall not be refunded until conclusion of the pending departmental proceedings. No order as to costs.