Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

the charge in respect of the first Memorandum of charge and (3) since the Inquiry Officer has not
taken into account the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner, the decision of the Inquiry Officer
and the Disciplinary Authority suffered from non-application of mind.
9. Mr. N.Sailo, learned Govt. Advocate, however, contends that the enquiry officer based his
conclusion on materials available on record and has duly considered the defence put forward by the
petitioner, and since the conclusions have been drawn in a reasonable manner and objectively, such
conclusions cannot be interfered with by this court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Drawing my
attention to Paras 7 and 8 of the Inquiry Reports, the learned counsel for the State respondent vehemently
submits that the Inquiry Officer has duly considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner,
and also all the documents relied upon by him to proof his innocent. In so far as the reliance placed by
the Inquiry Officer, on the preliminary enquiry report are concerned, the learned counsel for the State
respondent points out that these documents were duly exhibited in the course of enquiry in the presence
of the petitioner himself, who was given the opportunity to demolish the genuineness or otherwise of
the contends thereof by effective cross examination. He also pointed out that the petitioner was
defended by a defense assistant namely, Shri R.Sangliankhuma. With respect to the grievance regarding
the non consideration of the acquittal of the petitioner from the criminal case, the learned counsel for
the State contends that there is no rule of thumb that acquittal of a delinquent official in a criminal trial
shall automatically entitle him to exoneration from a departmental proceeding. According to the learned
counsel for the State, since there is no merit in this writ petition, the same is liable to be dismissed with
costs.
Mizoram PSC
10. From the pleadings of the parties, the first point for determination in this case is whether the
departmental proceeding can be said to be vitiated due to the reliance placed by the enquiry officer
upon the two preliminary reports in connection with the two departmental proceedings. There is no
dispute, nor can there be such a dispute, that the preliminary enquiries in both the Thenzawl Case and
Aibawk Case were conducted behind the back of the petitioner and that the reports of these preliminary
enquiries were made, the basis for initiating the two departmental enquiries against the petitioner. On
going through the Original File relating to the departmental proceeding, it is unmistakably clear that
both the preliminary enquiry reports were duly exhibited as exhibit-I in both the departmental enquiries
and the enquiring authorities in the said preliminary enquiries were also examined as State witnesses.
It is further clear from the record that those documents were exhibited and the authors of these
documents were examined in the presence of the petitioner and his defense assistant. The record
793