H. Hrangtiama vs State of Mizoram and Others

P.C. Phukan, J.—Heard Mr. H. Lalrinthanga, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Sailo, learned Government Advocate, Mizoram appearing for the State respondents.

In spite of due service of notices upon the private respondents, they have not appeared.

The petitioner was appointed as LDC on ad hoc basis by order dated 28.6.1973 and thereafter another appointment order dated 21.8.1973 was issued. The petitioner''s service was regularised with retrospective effect from 9.7.1973 by order dated 27.9.1973. The petitioner was then appointed as Officiating U.D.C. against a deputation vacancy by an order dated 4.10.1979. Thereafter the petitioner on the recommendation of DPC was promoted to the post of UDC (Census) by an order dated 7.2.1980. Then by an order dated 30.6.1981, the petitioner was reverted to the post of L.D.C. presumably because he did not appear in the DPC. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 27.7.1981 stating that he need not appear in the DPC for the post of UDC since he had already held the post of UDC as per the recommendation by the earlier DPC. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f. 10.3.1983 on the ground of contemplation of criminal proceedings against him by an order dated 20.10.1983. A number of criminal cases were instituted against him u/s 468, 471 IPC in G.R. No. 94/83, u/s 468, 409, 420, 471 IPC in G.R. No. 168/84, u/s 468, 420 IPC in GR No. 170/84 and u/s 468, 409, 420 IPC in GR No. 169/84. The petitioner was acquitted in all these cases except in GR No. 94/83 wherein he was convicted u/s 468 IPC by the judgment and order dated 17.3.1989. The operative portion of the judgment (Annexure - XII) reads as under :

''The accused Hrangtiama has been convicted u/s 468 IPC under GR No. 94/83. He deposited the money allegedly misappropriate by him, to appropriate authority. He has been under suspension for about five years. His case was inordinately delayed due to non-turning up of prosecution witnesses who failed to appear before the court. Had the Trial taken its regular course, had the prosecution witnesses turned up in time, the case could have been concluded much earlier. Owing to this unwanted delay, accused Hrangtiama had to remain under suspension for a long time. This has caused him enough mental torture which perhaps could be viewed as the punishment itself.

Considering the above and the merit of the case, I take a lenient view on convict Hrangtiama and exempt him from imprisonment and fine. I, further order that, he be reinstated in service forthwith. Departmental punishment be awarded against Hrangtiama as considered appropriate by the appointing authority. Further recovery be made from the pay etc. to Shri Hrangtiama in suitable instalments for the public money which Shri Hrangtiama drew on behalf of B.D.O., Sangau but either did not deposit in Treasury on hand it over to the B.D.O., Sangau. This would be settled by the appointing authority and in case of any doubt, the matter would be referred to this Court for disposal."

Pursuant to the above order, the D.C. Administration, Rural Development Department, Mizoram, Aizawl passed the following reinstatement order :-

"In pursuance of Court''s judgment issued under Memo No. D.156/PI - SHA/89 dated 17.3.1989, Pu Hrangtiama, LDC (U/S) BDO Office, Sangau is reinstated with immediate effect. But separate order for recovery of pecuniary loss and Departmental Disciplinary action shall be taken separately. The period of suspension from the period of 10.8.1983 is treated as on leave."

The petitioner by this application under article 226 of the Constitution has prayed that the impugned order dated 30.6.1981 (Annexure-VIII) reverting him to the post of LDC from the post of UDC and the order dated 8.8.1991 (Annexure-XV) for treating the period of suspension from 10.8.1983 as on leave be quashed and set aside and that the State respondents be directed to promote him to the post of UDC and also to treat the period of suspension from 10.8.1983 is on duty.

The State respondents have filed affidavit-in-opposition denying the averments made in the Writ Petition and stated, inter alia, that the promotion of the petitioner was made for a limited period in which the Census Operation was going on, and the petitioner was called to appear before the regular DPC on 20.6.1981 but he did not appear and hence he was reverted to the post of LDC Mr. N. Sailo, learned Govt. Advocate, submits that the petitioner could not have challenged that reversion order dated 30.6.1981 now after about twenty years and his writ petition is liable to be rejected on that score alone. Mr. H. Lalrinthanga, learned counsel for the petitioner, however has referred to a Division Bench of this Court reported in 1997 (11) GLT 213 where it has been held that there is no statutory time limit prescribed for filing a Writ Petition, and that the plea of delay should be raised at the motion or admission stage. In the instant case, the plea of delay was raised by the respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition at the earliest opportunity. Since the petitioner was promoted to the post of UDC only for a limited period when the operation of Census was going on, when such operation was over, he was given an opportunity to appear before a regular DPC for his regular promotion to the post of UDC. But since the petitioner did not appear before the DPC, the Government rightly reverted him to the post of LDC. As regard the prayer for treating the period of suspension as on duty, Mr. H. Lalrinthanga, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules requires the State Govt. to consider the circumstances leading to his conviction while deciding whether the period of suspension should be treated as on duty or as on leave.

The relevant portion of Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules reads as under:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 4 to Rule 181.-

(i) Where any penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, or

(ii) Where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these Rules, or

(iii) Where the President is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold any inquiry in the manner provided in these Rules, the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deem fit."

Mr. N. Sailo, learned Govt. Advocate submits that the Government did consider the circumstances of the case while making the impugned order dated 8.8.1991 (Annexure-XIV) treating the period of suspension as on leave, and the said order itself refers to the Court''s judgment dated 17.3.1989 convicting the petitioner u/s 468 IPC for forging signature of the Treasury Officer. Needless to say that it is a serious offence proved in Criminal Court to have been committed by the petitioner and the State respondents could not be found fault with for treating his period of suspension as on leave. Under Article 311 of the Constitution, where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, no departmental proceedings need be initiated for his dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. This writ petition is devoid of any merit and is dismissed.

The State respondents may, however, consider case of the petitioner for his promotion to the post of UDC when such vacancy arises in view of the fact that he has rendered service as an LDC for about thirty years,

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.