Dr. Linda Lalbiaknungi v. State of Mizoram r/b the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Mizoram & Ors.

Judgment

20.11.2025 Whether the pronouncement is of the : NA operative part of the judgment? Whether the full judgment has been : Yes pronounced? Page No.# 2/12 JUDGEMENT & ORDER (ORAL) Date : 20-11-2025 (Rajesh Mazumdar, J.) This matter was heard at length on 17.11.2025 and directed to be listed for delivery of the order.

2. Heard Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, learned counsel for the petitioner and

also heard Ms. Lalnunhlui, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents.

3. This writ petition has been instituted by the petitioner praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 19.12.2023 issued by the respondent No.2, i.e. the Principal Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Health & Family Welfare department, whereby the punishment of “reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay by two stages for a period of 3(three) years with effect from the date of penalty with further direction that the Government servant shall earn increments of pay during the period of reduction’. On expiry of the period of penalty, the reduction will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of pay under the Rule-11(v) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965” was imposed on the petitioner. A challenge has also been made to the order dated 22.05.2024 by which the petitioner was held not to be entitled to the pay and allowances for the period spent in suspension.

4. The petitioner is serving as a Medical Officer and has rendered 7 years of service approximately in the department of Health & Welfare, Government of Mizoram. While the petitioner was posted as Medical Officer Public Health Page No.# 3/12 Centre, Sialsuk, Mizoram (hereinafter referred to as “the Health Centre”), she was placed under suspension by an order dated 02.06.2022 passed under sub- rule (1) of Rule-10(1) of the CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules 1965), in contemplation of her disciplinary proceeding. The memorandum of charge dated 12.07.2022 was served upon the petitioner containing 3(three) Articles of Charges which are quoted below for ready reference; “Article I That the said Dr. Linda Lalbiaknungi, while functioning as Medical Officer, Sialsuk PHC was alleged to have committed grave misconduct in the discharge of her duties against a patient Pu Lalrengpuia, Sialsuk whom she discharged from the PHC without proper discharge certificate in connection with accusing him of stealing her money. Article II. That the said Dr. Linda Lalbiaknungi while functioning as Medical Officer, Sialsuk PHC was alleged to have referred alleged to have expelled patients from Sialsuk PHC. She is also alleged to have shown harsh treatment and discourteous manner to the staff of Sialsuk PHC. Article III That while functioning as Medical Officer, Sialsuk PHC, the said Dr. Linda Lalbiaknungi was alleged to sell medicines without Drug License from concerned authority which is in violation of Section 18(c) of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940. Page No.# 4/12 Dr. Linda Lalbiaknungi while functioning as Medical Officer, Sialsuk PHC failed to comply with the provisions of Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002; and failed to comply with provision of para 10.36 of Clinical Establishment Act Standard for Hospital-Level 4 of Mizoram and also violated the provisions of Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and thus failed to maintain devotion to duty and committed misconduct which is unbecoming of a government servant thereby violating Rule-3(1) (i) (ii) (iii) 15 & (xi) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.” By the separate order dated 01.08.2022, the enquiry officer and the presenting officer were appointed by the disciplinary authority. The written statement by the petitioner was filed through her defense assistant on

25.08.2022, the written statement by the presenting officer was filed on

06.09.2022 and a counter statement by the defense assistant of the petitioner was filed on 09.09.2022. The order of suspension dated 02.06.2022 was revoked by the order dated 26.09.2022, contemplating that the manner in which the period of suspension would be treated shall be finalized upon finalization of the disciplinary proceeding. An enquiry report dated 26.09.2022 was served upon the petitioner, which reflected that the Article-1 & Article-3 of the memorandum of charge were, in the opinion of the enquiry officer, proved and Article-2 stood not proved. The petitioner filed her reply to the enquiry report on 04.11.2022. A response to the same was served upon the petitioner on 22.11.2022 by the Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare department. Page No.# 5/12 The matter was thereafter referred to the Mizoram Public Service Commission, who, by the communication dated 16.05.2023, accepted the proposed major penalty sought to be imposed upon the petitioner. By a communication dated 22.05.2022, the petitioner was required to submit a representation on the proposed penalty advised by the Mizoram Public Service Commission. The petitioner then preferred her representation on 24.08.2023. By an order dated 19.12.2023, the penalty as mentioned in the forgoing paragraphs was imposed upon the petitioner. Subsequently, by another order dated 22.05.2024, the period of suspension spend by the petitioner has been directed to be treated as on duty for all purpose except payment of actual pay and allowances. This led the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that a bare perusal of the Articles of Charge framed against the petitioner and the findings in the enquiry report and the conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary proceeding would go to show that the charges found proved do not tally with the Articles of charge informed to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while allegation against the petitioner was that she had discharged a patient without issuing proper discharge certificate, the conclusion arrived at by the enquiry officer, which was agreed to by the disciplinary authority, reflects that it was never ascertained as to whether the patient had left the hospital willfully or otherwise. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it has been ascertained in the enquiry Page No.# 6/12 itself that a discharge certificate had been prepared by the petitioner, which would not be issued and at later stage, it was also stated that it could not ascertain whether the patient had willfully left or was actually discharged. In such circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding that the patient was discharged without proper discharge certificate could not have been held to be proved against the petitioner. The Article of Charge No.2 having been found not proved, no arguments were required against the said Article. With regard to Article-3, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said charge related to an allegation that the petitioner was involved in selling medicines at the hospital canteen by using drug licenses issued to the other staff namely, Pi Lalchawimawii, a staff nurse of the Health Centre. The further allegation was that the petitioner was selling drugs without valid drug license which was in violation of the Government standing law, rules, regulations and established procedures in the CCS Conduct Rules and also in violation of section 18(c) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while evaluating the said charges, the enquiry officer has referred not only to the Circular issued by the Joint Director and the letter addressed to the Under Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, the enquiry officer also relied upon the “enquiry report of the Joint Director, (Food and Drugs), Controlling and Licensing Authority Directorate of Health Services, Mizoram” submitted to the Principal Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Health & Family Welfare department. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said report of the Joint Director was not a part Page No.# 7/12 of the list of documents supplied to the petitioner along with the memorandum of charges and even during the enquiry proceedings, no attempt had been made on behalf of the disciplinary authority to prove the authenticity of such a report. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid report had not been provided to the petitioner during the enquiry proceedings and as such, the enquiry officer had acted to the prejudice of the petitioner when such a report was allowed to be a part of the enquiry. The disciplinary authority thereafter committed a grave error when it took into consideration the finding of the enquiry officer to come to a conclusion that the Article-3 of the memorandum of charge also stood proved. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that although the Article of Charge No.3 had specifically asserted that the petitioner was using the drugs license of a staff nurse, during the enquiry, it appears that the said staff nurse did not have any drugs license issued in her favour. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the absence of the drugs license in the name of the staff nurse ought to have been in itself, enough for the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority to come to the conclusion that the Article charge at Sl. No. 3 stood not proved. He further stated that instead of taking such a recourse, the enquiry officer proceeded to find out whether the petitioner had been involved as a mediator in sale of medicines inside the PHC, a charge which was neither framed nor informed to the petitioner that it would enquired into. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even going by the statement of the staff nurse, whose license was alleged to have been used, Page No.# 8/12 had submitted that the petitioner had used her father drugs license. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the staff nurse, who had appeared as witness in the enquiry proceedings had contradicted herself at different times during the proceedings itself and therefore, her statement could not have taken to be reliable to come to a finding of guilt against the petitioner. He further submitted that the Members of the Village Council had made statement only on hearsay basis and therefore, their statements ought not to have been relied upon to arrive at a finding of guilty against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments to buttress his arguments; (i) A.N D’Silva -versus- Union of India, reported in 1961 SCC Online SC 81 (ii) Union of India -versus- Sardar Bahadur, reported in (1972) 4 SCC 618 (iii) Union of India -versus- Parma Nanda, reported in (1989) 2 SCC 177 (iv) B.C Chaturvedi -versus- Union of India, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 (v) Government of Tamil Nadu & Another -versus- Rajapandian, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 302 (vi) Apparel Export Promotion Council -versus- A.K. Chopra, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 759 Page No.# 9/12 (vii) Chief Executive Officer, Krishna District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. -versus- K. Hanumanta Rao, arising out of SLP(C) No. 30710 of 2014) (viii) Zora Singh -versus- J.M Tandon, reported in AIR 1971 SC 1537 (ix) Bidyabhushan Case, Railway Board -versus- Niranjan Singh, reported (1969) 3 SCR 548.

5. Ms. Lalnunhlui, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents has opposed the submission made on the behalf of the petitioner and has submitted that the provisions of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940 are very much applicable to the State of Mizoram and therefore, the act of the petitioner in selling drugs within the Health Centre premises on the basis of drugs license which were not issued in her name is a misconduct under the CCS (Conduct) Rules. She has submitted that each and every aspect of the enquiry proceedings had been duly considered by the disciplinary authority and even before imposing the punishment, the petitioner had been given an opportunity to represent against the proposed penalty. She has submitted that the petitioner had been allowed to participate in the enquiry proceedings, which opportunity she availed by resorting to cross-examination of the witnesses produced on the behalf of the disciplinary authority, that the petitioner had been supplied a copy of the enquiry report, to which she had also filed a representation and that the petitioner had also been supplied with the proposed penalty, against which she had filed her representation. Page No.# 10/12 The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has relied upon the judgment & order dated 22.03.2022 in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Others -versus- Rajit Singh, reported in (2022) 15 SCC 254 to emphasize in case any violation is found to be done during the enquiry proceedings, the matter is required to be remanded back for final consideration by the department. In view of the above, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that it cannot be a case where the petitioner can plead that the principles of natural justice has not been adhered to or that there is any deficiency in the procedure during the enquiry that would lead to vitiate the enquiry. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that there is a provision in Rule-26 of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 to prefer an appeal and the petitioner had also availed the opportunity of preferring the appeal, which was rejected by the department on the ground that since the Governor had exercised authority as a disciplinary authority, no appeal would lie. She therefore submitted that the question of consideration of the appeal submitted to the Chief Secretary cannot be entertained in the instant case.

6. Since the enquiry proceedings have not been placed before this Court, the Court had to proceed on the material available on record. On the perusal of the records annexed with the writ petition, which are not disputed by the respondents, it appears that there is substantial force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Article-1 of the memorandum of charges was different from the charge that the enquiry report had shown to be Page No.# 11/12 proved. It is also appears from the enquiry report and the memorandum of charge as well as the order passed by the disciplinary authority that there is no record to the effect that the copy of the enquiry report, relied upon by the disciplinary authority and the enquiry officer, allegedly prepared by the Joint Director, Health Services had been provided to the petitioner during the enquiry proceedings or that the said enquiry report had been proved during the enquiry proceedings in the manner required in law. In the opinion of this Court, the alteration of the charges, from the one made known to the petitioner, and proved as a different charge as regard to Article-1 and the non supply of the report of the Joint Director, Health Services to the petitioner during the enquiry proceedings has caused prejudice to the petitioner in the enquiry proceedings, which would have the potential to vitiate the enquiry since the petitioner could not avail of an effective right to defense during the proceedings. It is one thing to say that the sufficiency or veracity of the evidence lead by the disciplinary authority need not be gone into by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under the provision of Article-226 of the Constitution of India but it is another matter that when the evidence is led and charges are altered without notice to the petitioner, this Court is required to evaluate as to whether such evidence and such alteration of charge has caused prejudice to the charged officer. In the present case, this Court finds that the alteration of the charge and the reliance on evidence not proved during the enquiry proceedings being taken on record without notice to the writ petitioner has caused prejudice to the petitioner. In view of the above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the enquiry proceedings, which culminated in the inquiry report dated 26.09.2022 and the subsequent orders dated 19.12.2023 and 22.05.2024 cannot sustain the scrutiny of law and deserves the interference of this Court. Page No.# 12/12 Accordingly, the enquiry proceedings, the order dated 19.12.2023 stands interfered with. Since this writ petition has been disposed by noting the procedured lapses during the enquiry proceedings, the same shall not act as a bar for the disciplinary authority to proceed in accordance with law with regard to the charges already framed, if it so desires. It is however made clear that any such process should be initiated and culminated within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The penalty order has been set aside by this Court, and in the event that the disciplinary authority does not conclude with the enquiry, if any, within a period of 2(two) months, as directed hereinabove, the impugned order dated

22.05.2024 shall also stand quashed, thereby resulting in regularizing the period of suspension of the petitioner for all purposes. In case, the disciplinary authority conducts an enquiry, the fate of the period of suspension suffered by the petitioner shall depend on the outcome of the said enquiry. Writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant