JUDGMENT Michael Zothankhuma, J. - Heard Mr. Zochhuana, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate. 2. The petitioner, who was a Police Constable in the Battalion Headquarters, Lungverh, has prayed for setting aside the impugned Order dated 29.04.2016, by which he has been imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement from service for unauthorized absence of 32 days w.e.f., 14.12.2015 to 14.01.2016. 3. The petitioner''s case is that due to the unauthorized absence of the petitioner for a period of 32 days w.e.f., 14.12.2015 to 14.01.2016, a departmental enquiry had been initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner had been issued a Memorandum of Charge dated 20.01.2016, wherein 2 articles of charge were framed against the petitioner. Article 1 was with regard to his 32 days unauthorized absence, while Article 2 reflected the 8 punishments awarded to the petitioner for various misconducts and indiscipline. The petitioner was also given 10 days time to submit a written statement of defence with regard to the articles of charge framed against him. The petitioner thereafter submitted a letter admitting to all the articles of charge framed against him and prayed for leniency. 4. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority issued the impugned Order dated 29.04.2016, awarding the penalty of compulsory retirement from service upon the petitioner. 5. The petitioner''s counsel submits that though Rule 1028(3) of the Mizoram Police Manual, 2005 states that no major punishment shall be imposed on a Police Officer unless a departmental enquiry has been conducted against him, the petitioner has been awarded a major punishment without holding a proper departmental enquiry. He submits that even if the petitioner had admitted to the charges, albeit on the wrong advice of his superiors, the State respondents could not have imposed a major penalty upon the petitioner, as the Department Enquiry was not fully concluded, i.e. recording of evidence of witnesses, inquiry report etc had to be made. He submits that in a similar case, wherein a delinquent policemen had admitted to all the articles of charge framed against him, which was reflected in the memorandum of charge, the disciplinary authority had imposed a major penalty of stoppage of increment for a period of 1 year with cumulative effect, on the basis of the admission made and had not proceeded further with Department Enquiry, which implied that Department Enquiry had not been concluded. This Court in the said case i.e., WP(C) No. 17/2019 (Sh. S.I. C. Lalramtluanga Vs. State of Mizoram & Ors.) had held that though an enquiry was initiated, the same could not be termed as a full-fledged departmental enquiry contemplated under Rule 1028(3) of the Mizoram Police Manual, 2005. Accordingly, the enquiry initiated in WP(C) No. 17/2019, as a result of which a major punishment was awarded was held to be dehors Rule 1028(3) and not sustainable in law. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that as this is a covered case, the present writ petition should also be allowed as a full-fledged departmental enquiry has not been completed as per Rule 1028(3) of the Mizoram Police Manual, 2005. 7. Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that a departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner as per Rule 1028(3) of the Mizoram Police Manual, 2005. The petitioner was given a memo of charge and given time to reply to the articles of charge framed against him. The petitioner admitted his guilt unconditionally and prayed for forgiveness. Despite the above, an Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer were appointed vide Orders dated 04.02.2016. 8. The learned Government Advocate thus submits that the departmental enquiry continued even after the petitioner had submitted his reply dated 29.01.2016 to the charge memorandum, wherein he had admitted to all the charges framed against him. Even in the Preliminary held during the Departmental Enquiry, the petitioner admitted to the charges before the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. Thereafter, enquiry report was made by the Enquiry Officer, which was sent to the Disciplinary authority. The Enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner vide letter dated 22.03.2016, wherein he was asked to submit his representation. The petitioner furnished his reply to the Enquiry Report on 08.04.2016, wherein he again admitted his misconduct and prayed for forgiveness with a promise not to repeat such misconduct in the future. Thereafter, the impugned order of compulsory retirement from service was issued to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent thus submits that the petitioner was imposed a major penalty, only after a departmental enquiry was initiated and completed under Rule 1028(3) of the Mizoram Police Manual, 2005. 9. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 10. Thereafter, the impugned order of compulsory retirement from service was issued to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent thus submits that the petitioner was imposed a major penalty, only after a departmental enquiry was initiated and completed under Rule 1028(3) of the Mizoram Police Manual, 2005. 9. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 10. On perusing the pleadings of the parties and the records which have been produced before this Court, I find that the petitioner was issued a memorandum of charge with 2 articles of charge framed against him. Article 1 was with regard to his unauthorized absence for 32 days, while Article 2 was with regard to the 8 punishment orders inflicted upon the petitioner for various acts of indicipline and misconducts. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 29.01.2016 to the memorandum of charge, stating that he had nothing to say in his defence against the articles of charge framed against him and promised never to commit such misconduct in future. 11. Despite the petitioner''s admission of the articles of charge framed against the petitioner, the respondent authorities proceeded with the departmental enquiry by appointing an Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer vide Orders dated 04.02.2016. The petitioner was thereafter asked to take part in the preliminary hearing, wherein he was asked whether he accepted the appointment of the Enqiry Officer and the Presenting Officer. He did not have any objection to the same. The petitioner was thereafter asked whether he would like to have a Defence Assistant/Defence Witness, to which he stated that it was unnecessary. He was also given a chance to inspect all documents and he was informed of the articles of charge framed against him. He accepted both the articles of charge framed against him in the preliminary hearing held on 12.02.2016 before the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer. Subsequent to the above, the Enquiry Officer submitted his Enquiry Report dated 14.03.2016 to the disciplinary authority, stating that both the articles of charge were found to be proved against the petitioner. 12. The petitioner was thereafter issued a Show Cause Notice dated 22.03.2016, alongwith the Enquiry report as per Rule 1039 of the Mizoram Police Manual, 2005, asking him to submit his representation on the findings in the Enquiry report. 12. The petitioner was thereafter issued a Show Cause Notice dated 22.03.2016, alongwith the Enquiry report as per Rule 1039 of the Mizoram Police Manual, 2005, asking him to submit his representation on the findings in the Enquiry report. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 08.04.2016 to the Enquiry report, stating that he felt sorry and regretted his misconduct. He prayed for forgiveness and promised not to repeat such misconduct in the future. 13. The Disciplinary authority thereupon, after considering all the materials on record, passed the impugned Order dated 29.04.2016, imposing the major penalty of compulsory retirement from service with full benefits against the petitioner. 14. The above facts clearly goes to show that the departmental enquiry was initiated and completed by the respondent authorities before issuing the impugned order imposing major penalty against the petitioner. In light of the above, it is clear that there was no violation of Rule 1028(3) of the Mizoram Police Manual, 2005, prior to imposing a major penalty upon the Delinquent Policeman. 15. In WP(C) No. 17/2019, which as disposed of vide Judgment & Order dated 04.02.2020, the challenge had been made by the petitioner therein to the imposition of a major penalty imposed upon him by the State Government on the basis of the petitioner admitting his guilt against the articles of charge framed against him in the memorandum of charge. A Co-ordinate Bench in WP(C) No. 17/2019 held that though there was no dispute to the fact that the departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner therein, the enquiry could not have been closed/stopped and a major penalty imposed on the basis of the admission of guilt made by the petitioner therein. The learned Court also held that the admission of guilt by the petitioner therein was not clear and it was ambiguous. It thus held that the departmental enquiry should have proceeded further by giving full opportunity of hearing to the Charge Officer. As the same was not done, the Co-ordinate Bench held that Rule 1028(3) of the Mizoram Police Manual, 2005 had been violated. Accordingly, the penalty imposed was held to be unsustainable. 16. In the present case, though the petitioner had admitted his guilt in his reply to the articles of charge framed against him in the memorandum of charge, the departmental enquiry was continued. Accordingly, the penalty imposed was held to be unsustainable. 16. In the present case, though the petitioner had admitted his guilt in his reply to the articles of charge framed against him in the memorandum of charge, the departmental enquiry was continued. The petitioner had again admitted to his guilt during the departmental proceeding at the time of preliminary hearing. The petitioner again admitted his guilt, while giving a reply to the Enquiry Report. Thus, in the present case, the departmental enquiry has been completed. The facts of the present case is different from the facts in WP(C) No. 17/2019. 17. In WP(C) No. 17/2019, a Co-ordinate Bench had referred to the Apex Court judgment in the case of Jagdish Prasad Saxena Vs. State of Madhya Bharat (now Madhya Pradesh), (1961) AIR SC 1070 , wherein it was stated in paragraph No. 13 of the judgment that the departmental enquiry is not an empty formality and it is a serious proceeding intended to give the Officer concerned a chance to meet the charge and to prove his innocence. It also held that in the absence of any enquiry, it would not be fair to strain facts against the Officer concerned and to hold that in view of the admissions made by him, the enquiry would have served no useful purpose. The Apex Court further held that the above would be a matter of speculation, which was wholly out of place in dealing with cases of orders passed against public servant terminating their services. wxyz In the case of Jagdish Prasad Saxena Vs. State of Madhya Bharat (now Madhya Pradesh), (1961) AIR SC 1070 , the matter pertained to the Delinquent Officer being imposed a penalty on the basis of his admission to a misconduct during the preliminary enquiry and not on the basis of charges framed after initiation of a departmental enquiry. As such, the law laid down in Jagdish Prasad Saxena Vs. State of Madhya Bharat (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case. zyxw 18. In Union of India & Ors. Vs. As such, the law laid down in Jagdish Prasad Saxena Vs. State of Madhya Bharat (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case. zyxw 18. In Union of India & Ors. Vs. K.V. Jankiraman & Ors., (1991) 4 SCC 109 , the Apex Court at paragraph No. 16 has agreed with the finding of the Full Bench of the Tribunal that it is only when a charge memo in a disciplinary proceeding is issued to the employee that it can be said that the departmental proceeding is initiated against the employee. In the above judgment, the Apex Court at paragraph No. 16 has held as follows:- wxyz "16. On the first question, viz, as to when for the purposes of the sealed cover procedure the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to have commenced, the Full bench of the Tribunal has held that it is only when a charge-memo in a disciplinary proceedings or a charge-sheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee that it can be said that the departmental proceedings/criminal prosecution is initiated against the employee. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. We are in agreement with the Tribunal on this point." zyxw wxyz In the case of Chairman & Managing Director, V.S.P. & Ors. Vs. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu, (2008) 5 SCC 569 the delinquent employee had admitted his guilt with regard to the articles of charge framed against him. In view of the voluntary admission of the charges, the enquiry was closed and an order for removal of service was passed. The Delinquent Officer thereafter filed a writ petition in the High Court which was treated as an appeal. On the basis of an order passed by High Court, an opportunity of personal hearing was granted to him by the Appellate Authority and the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority was affirmed. A review application filed by the delinquent employee was dismissed. The challenge to the validity of the affirmation of the order of penalty and order of review by way of a writ petition was dismissed by the High Court. On an Intra Court appeal, the Division Bench reversed the order of the learned Single Bench. A review application filed by the delinquent employee was dismissed. The challenge to the validity of the affirmation of the order of penalty and order of review by way of a writ petition was dismissed by the High Court. On an Intra Court appeal, the Division Bench reversed the order of the learned Single Bench. The matter went up to the Apex Court and the Apex Court has stated in paragraph No. 16 as follows:- zyxw wxyz "16. Indisputably, the respondent was a habitual absentee. He in his explanation, in answer to the charge-sheet pleaded guilty admitting the charges. In terms of Section 58 of the Evidence Act, charges having been admitted were not required to be proved. It was on that premise that the enquiry proceeding was closed. Before the enquiry officer, he did not submit the explanation of his mother being ill. He, despite opportunities granted to report to duty, did not do it. He failed to explain even his prior conduct." zyxw 19. A perusal of the above judgments of the Apex Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. K.V. Jankiraman & Ors. (Supra) and Chairman & Managing Director, V.S.P. & Ors. Vs. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu (Supra) clearly show that a departmental enquiry/proceeding can be closed, if the employee admits to all the charges framed against him in the memorandum of charge/charge sheet, as there is nothing left to be proved in terms of Section 58 of the Evidence Act. There is no requirement of calling of witnesses etc. once the articles of charge have been admitted. There is no requirement for the departmental enquiry to proceed any further. As an admission leaves nothing left to be proved in terms of Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a major penalty can be imposed on the basis of such admission and the same would not be in violation of Rule 1028(3) of the Mizoram Police Manual, 2005. The same is clear as the initiation of a departmental enquiry starts from the moment the memorandum of charge/charge sheet is furnished to the delinquent employee. If an admission to all the charges is made by the delinquent employee, a detailed enquiry need not be held. The facts of the present case clearly show that the petitioner had by his reply dated 29.01.2016, admitted to the articles of charge framed in the memo of charges. If an admission to all the charges is made by the delinquent employee, a detailed enquiry need not be held. The facts of the present case clearly show that the petitioner had by his reply dated 29.01.2016, admitted to the articles of charge framed in the memo of charges. The respondent authorities could have closed the departmental enquiry and passed an appropriate order, including imposition of a major penalty, as the requirement of Rule 1028(3) would have been complied with. However, despite the above, the respondent authorities continued with the departmental enquiry, which culminated in the impugned order being issued. There being no procedural irregularity in the departmental proceeding and as there had been no violation of Rule 1028(3) of the Mizoram Police Manual, 2005, the present writ petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. 20. In view of the reasons stated above, the Judgment & Order dated 04.02.2020 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in WP(C) No. 17/2019 is not applicable to the facts of this case. It is settled law that a judgment is only an authority for what it decides and not what logically follows from it. A little difference in facts changes the precedential value of a decision. As such, this case is not a covered case. 21. Besides the above, it is seen that the petitioner has not filed any appeal before the Appellate Authority in respect of the penalty imposed upon him. Lastly, while the impugned penalty order had been issued on 29.04.2016, the writ petition has been filed only on 04.12.2019 i.e., after 3 years and 8 months. The Writ Petition is accordingly hit by laches and delay also. 22. In view of the reasons stated above, there being no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed.