East vs The State Of Manipur Represented ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 392 Mani

                                                                            Page |1



SHAMU Date:                IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                                     AT IMPHAL
RAILATP 2022.08.
AM      26                            WP(C) No. 486 of 2021

SUSHIL 13:51:50     Shri Mutum Kumarjit Singh, MPS, aged about 58 years

SHARMA +05'30'      old at present working as Commandant, 6th I.R.B.

                    Pangei, Imphal East, Manipur S/o. (Late) M. Tomcha

                    Singh, a resident of Nongmeibung Lamdaipung

                    Makhong           at   present    residing   at     Porompat

                    Thawanthaba Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal

                    East, Manipur-795005 .

                                                                      ---Petitioner

                                           -Versus-

                    1. The State of Manipur represented by the Chief

                         Secretary (D.P.), Govt. of Manipur, having his

                         Office at Old Secretariat (South Block), P.O. & P.S.

                         Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.


                    2. The Under Secretary (D.P.), Government of

                        Manipur having his Office at Old Secretariat (South

                        Block), P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,

                        Manipur-795001.




              WP(C) No. 486 of 2021
                                                                Page |2



       3. The Director General of Police, Manipur, having its

           Office at Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal

           West District, Manipur-795001.


       4. The      Director        (Vigilance   &    Anti-Corruption

           Department), Manipur having its office at Old

           Secretariat (South Block), P.O. & P.S. Imphal,

           Imphal West, Manipur-795001.

                                         ---- Official Respondents

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN

For the Petitioners :: Mr. N. Jotendro, Sr. Advocate.

For the Respondents :: Mr. H. Samarjit, GA.

Date of Hearing and
reserving Judgment & Order ::           26.07.2022

Date of Judgment & Order           ::   26.08.2022

                      JUDGMENT AND ORDER
                            (CAV)

The writ petition has been filed to quash the order

dated 09.11.2017 issued by the Chief Secretary (DP), the order

dated 19.6.2018 issued by the Under Secretary (Finance/PIC)

and also the notice dated 19.10.2018 issued by the Under

Secretary (Finance/PIC), including the impugned letter dated

WP(C) No. 486 of 2021 Page |3

27.11.2019 issued by the Under Secretary (DP), Government

of Manipur to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department.

2. Brief facts are as follows:

The petitioner was initially appointed to the post of

Jemadar and after serving about 10 years to the said post, he

was promoted to the post of Subedar and on the

recommendation of the DPC, he was further promoted to the

post of Manipur Police Grade-II. On 29.10.2014, the petitioner

was promoted to the post of MPS Grade-I and he was

transferred and posted to the post of C.O./6th IRB on in-charge

basis on 29.7.2020 and since then, he is holding the said post

of C.O./6th IRB at Pangei. While so working, the petitioner was

placed under suspension on 1.9.2017 in connection with the

irregularities and lapses in the procurement of web equipment

by Manipur Police i.e. in the supply of Leather Belt (Black) and

AK Sling and thereafter, the suspension was revoked on

30.11.2017.

2.1. On 9.11.2017, a Memorandum enclosing Articles

of Charges was issued for holding departmental enquiry against

the petitioner and two other officers and the petitioner had also

WP(C) No. 486 of 2021 Page |4

submitted his statement of defence on 15.11.2017 and the

departmental proceedings has already been completed. The

enquiry report has also been submitted by the Enquiry Officer,

however, the disciplinary authority have not given any decision

in connection with the said departmental enquiry without

assigning any reason.

2.2. On 19.6.2018, a notice has been issued to the

petitioner under Rule 9(7) of the Manipur Public Servants'

Personal Liability Rules, 2006 directing him to submit his written

statement of defence within 15 days. On 19.10.2018, a notice

for constitution of Higher Power Committee on the charges

against the petitioner and two other officers was intimated and

soon after receiving the notice dated 19.10.2018, the petitioner

submitted his written objection to the High Power Committee on

29.10.2018 denying the allegations for holding parallel inquiry.

2.3. The supplier, namely M/s.Md. AbdulGani Khan,

has challenged the order dated 9.6.2017 blacklisting his firm in

connection with the supply of the uniform and web equipment

before this Court in W.P.(C) No.444 of 2017 and by the order

dated 31.10.2017, this Court quashed the order dated 9.6.2017.

An FIR has also been registered against the supplier Md. Abdul

WP(C) No. 486 of 2021 Page |5

Gani Khan being FIR No.174(6)2017 under Sections 406, 409,

420 IPC and he was arrested and thereafter released on bail.

The supplier had also filed quash petition under Section 482

Cr.P.C. being Cril. Petn. No.2 of 2018 before this Court for

quashing of the aforesaid FIR and this Court by the order dated

1.8.2019 allowed the said criminal petition, thereby quashing

the FIR. As against the order passed in W.P.No.444 of 2017

and Cril. Petn. No.2 of 2018, no appeal has been filed by the

competent authority.

2.4. The departmental proceedings has been

challenged by Faomei Gonglin, IPS before the Central

Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal after hearing the

parties passed final order directing to conclude the

departmental proceedings against the said IPS officer within

three months, failing which the departmental proceeding shall

stand abated and the same was complied with by the order

dated 29.4.2021 thereby closing the departmental enquiry

proceedings against Faumei Gonglin. As such the petitioner

being a similarly situated person is also entitled to revoke his

departmental enquiry proceedings so as to enable him to get

his promotion to the next higher post as all the eligible persons

WP(C) No. 486 of 2021 Page |6

including his juniors have been promoted to the next higher post

of MPS Junior Administrative Grade (Non-Functional) by an

order dated 31.3.2021, thereby seriously affecting his rights

guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

2.5. Similarly situated person, namely S.Manglemjao

Singh has also filed O.A.No.042/00338 of 2019 before the

Tribunal challenging the departmental enquiry proceedings and

the Tribunal has simply passed an order to conclude the

departmental enquiry proceedings within a period of two

months by the order dated 4.11.2019. Aggrieved by the order

dated 4.11.2019, S.Manglemjao Singh preferred

W.P.(C)No.999 of 2019 before this Court and a Division Bench

of this Court by the order dated 12.2.2021 quashed the order of

the Tribunal dated 4.11.2019 along with order dated 27.2.2018

issued by the Chief Secretary (DP) thereby directed the

respondents to release the pensionary benefits to him within a

period of three months. Since compliance of the order was not

made, Contempt Case No.60 of 2021 was filed.

2.6. The petitioner has also filed W.P.(C) No.421 of

2021 praying to extend the benefit given to the Faomei Gonglin

as he is similarly situated person. While filing counter in W.P.(C)

WP(C) No. 486 of 2021 Page |7

No.421 of 2021, the petitioner came to know that the enquiry

report as against the petitioner and two other officers was

submitted on 29.8.2019 for taking an appropriate action. The

petitioner also reliably learned that the charges levelled against

the three officers were not proved and being unsatisfied, the

Under Secretary wrote a letter on 27.11.2019 to the Director

(Vigilance & Anti-Corruption) Department, Manipur for doing

further vigilance enquiry against the officers involved in the

irregularities. On 2.8.2021, the petitioner submitted a

representation thereby requesting to provide copy of the

enquiry report submitted by the Additional Chief Secretary (DP),

however, the same has not been furnished till date. Aggrieved

by the aforesaid inaction of the competent authority and seeking

to extend the similar benefit as given to the similarly situated

person Faomei Gonglin, the petitioner has filed the present writ

petition.

3. No counter affidavit has been filed by the

respondents in this writ petition. However, while disposing of

W.P.(C) No.421 of 2021, this Court directed the learned

Government Advocate to rely on the counter filed in

W.P.No.421 of 2021 in the present writ petition. Accordingly,

WP(C) No. 486 of 2021 Page |8

the counter affidavit filed W.P. (C) No.421 of 2021 has been

called for to this writ petition.

4. In the counter-affidavit, respondent Nos.1 and 2

stated as under:

By the impugned Memorandum dated 9.11.2017,

the Department of Personnel, Government of Manipur, initiated

a departmental enquiry against the petitioner under the

provisions of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 in

connection with the alleged irregularities in the procurement of

leather belts (black) in the Manipur Police Department.

4.1. It is stated that the writ petition being W.P.(C)

No.444 of 2017 filed by the supplier M/s.Md. Abdul Gani Khan

was allowed by this Court and set aside the order on the ground

that no opportunity of hearing was given to him before issuance

of the order of blacklisting, however, this Court granted liberty

to the State to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

It is further stated that this Court quashed the FIR in Cril. Petn.

No.2 of 2018 on the ground that the issue involved in the case

was purely civil in nature and as such cannot be given a colour

of criminal offence as the dispute arose out the contract

WP(C) No. 486 of 2021 Page |9

agreement of supply. The departmental enquiry instituted

against Faumei Gonglin, IPS in connection with the alleged

irregularities was closed in compliance of the order of the

Tribunal dated 20.11.2020. Though the inquiring authority

submitted his report on 29.8.2019, the same was not accepted

and the matter was referred to the Vigilance Department and

the report is still awaited.

4.2. It is stated that the departmental enquiry

proceedings initiated against the petitioner are governed by

CCS (CCA) Rules, while the case of Faomei Gonglin, IPS are

governed by All India Service Rules and therefore, they cannot

be similarly situated. Further, the petitioner has not challenged

the departmental enquiry proceedings against him in the writ

petition and also having failed to show that he made a clear

demand of his legal rights to the authority and the refusal of the

said demand by the authority, the present writ petition is not

maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. Assailing the impugned orders, Mr. N. Jotendro,

the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

disciplinary proceedings was initiated in connection with the

procurement of web equipment by Manipur Police i.e. in the

WP(C) No. 486 of 2021 P a g e | 10

supply of leather belt (black) and AK sling against the petitioner

along with two incumbents, namely, Manglemjao, IPS (retd.),

the then IGP (Ops) and Faoemei Gonglin, IPS. He would

submit that as far as the other two officers, namely Manglemjao

and Faoemei Gonglin are concerned, Manglemjao, IPS has

filed W.P.(C) No.999 of 2019 against the order passed by the

Tribunal dated 4.11.2019 in O.A.No.42/00338 of 2019 thereby

directing to complete the departmental enquiry within a period

of two months and by the judgment dated 12.02.2021, the

Division Bench of this Court set aside the order of the Tribunal

dated 4.11.2019 and quashed the order dated 27.2.2018 issued

by the Chief Secretary (DP) for initiating departmental enquiry

proceedings and also directed the respondents to release the

pension and other pensionary benefits to him.

6. He further submitted that when Faoemei Gonglin,

IPS challenged the departmental enquiry proceedings before

the Tribunal, the Tribunal by an order dated 20.11.2020 directed

to conclude the departmental proceedings against the said

officer within a period of three months failing which the

departmental proceedings shall stand abated. In compliance,

the competent authority had passed an order dated 29.4.2021

WP(C) No. 486 of 2021 P a g e | 11

thereby closing the departmental enquiry proceedings against

Faoemei Gonglin, IPS and thereafter, he was given further

promotion.

7. The learned counsel further submitted that as

similarly situated officers have already been set free from the

departmental enquiry on the same allegation of charges

levelled against the petitioner and the enquiring authority has

submitted a joint enquiry report to the effect that the charges

levelled against the petitioner and other two officers were not

proved. Therefore, the further vigilance enquiry against the

officers is arbitrary and the same is liable to be set aside.

8. The learned senior counsel urged that the further

promotion of the petitioner has been withheld by the competent

authority only on the ground of non-completion of the

departmental enquiry proceedings against him, including the

enquiry before the High Power Committee. In fact, the

petitioner is similarly situated with that of Faomei Gonglin, IPS

and therefore the petitioner is also entitled to get the similar

benefit.

WP(C) No. 486 of 2021 P a g e | 12

9. Per contra, Mr. H. Samarjit, the learned

Government Advocate submitted that the question of abating of

the departmental enquiry proceedings does not arise as the

petitioner has failed to point out under which provision of rule of

the CCS (CCA) Rules, the proceedings against him should be

abated. Since this Court has granted liberty to the State

authority to proceed in accordance with law in W.P.(C) No.999

of 2019, the further proceedings against the petitioner was

taken.

10. The learned senior counsel further submitted that

the departmental enquiry proceedings initiated against the

petitioner are governed by CCS (CCA) Rules while the case of

Faoemei Gonglin, IPS are governed by All India Service Rules

and therefore, they cannot be similarly situated as they are

governed by different Rules. Thus, the question of revoking the

departmental enquiry against the petitioner does not arise.

Therefore, a prayer is made to dismiss the writ petition.

11. This Court considered the rival submissions and

also perused the materials available on record.

WP(C) No. 486 of 2021 P a g e | 13

12. It appears that while the petitioner was working as

Addl. SP (Ops), Imphal East, he was placed under suspension

on 1.9.2017 for the alleged irregularities and lapses in the

procurement of web equipment by Manipur Police i.e. in the

supply of leather belt (black) and AK sling. Subsequently, on

30.11.2017, the suspension was revoked without prejudice to

the departmental enquiry against him. On 09.11.2017, the

petitioner was issued with Articles of Charges. The Article of

Charges against the petitioner reads thus:

"That the said Shri M. Kumarjit Singh, MPS while discharging as Commandant 2nd MR in the year 2013-14 was nominated as a Line Committee Member for inspection and checking of the supplied items of uniform and equipment vide Order No.PR-13/14/2014- PHQ dated 30th April, 2014 (Annexure-1/A).

That during the aforesaid period and while functioning as Line Committee Member, 2 (two) copies of Proceeding of the Line Committee meeting held on 23.06.2014 and 20.08.2014 of checking Uniforms and Web Equipments for 7 (seven) and 4 (four) items supplied by M/s.Md. Abdul Gani Khan, Masjib Road, Imphal was submitted to the

WP(C) No. 486 of 2021 P a g e | 14

then DGP mentioning that the items received are as per specification of the sample furnished at the time of tender vide letter No.C-1/1/14-IGP (Ops)/3308 dated 23.06.2014 (Annexure-2/A) and letter No.C- 1/1/2014-1GP (Ops)/4400 dated 20.08.2014 (Annexure-3/A). It is evident that neither specifications as indicated in the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) as per the approved samples have not been adhered by the suppliers in case of Leather Belt (Black) with crest nor the Line Committee Member failed to check of the materials supplied by the Suppliers both in terms of quality and quantity. Thus, the Charged Officer has failed to maintain absolute integrity while discharging his duty and unbecoming of a Govt. servant which is in violation of Rule 3(1)(i) & (iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964.

That, Shri M.Kumarjit Singh, MPS has shown utter negligence while discharging his duty as the Member of the Line committee i.e. negligence to check the quality of products supplied by the suppliers. It is laid that the job nature of a Line Committee is critical and sensitive. As a Member of the Line Committee, it is mandated to do an

WP(C) No. 486 of 2021 P a g e | 15

exhaustive checking of the materials supplied by the Suppliers both in terms of quality and quantity. There is also a lapse and irregularity on the part of Shri M.Kumarjit Singh, MPS. This is against Rule 2(i) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964."

13. There is no dispute that upon receipt of the charge

memo, the petitioner had submitted his statement of defence

and departmental enquiry commenced and the Enquiry Officer

has submitted his report to the disciplinary authority.

14. It appears that on 19.6.2018, the Under Secretary

(Finance/ PIC) issued notice under Rule 9(7) of the Manipur

Public Servants Personal Liability Rules, 2006 directing the

petitioner to submit his written statement before the Principal

Secretary, Department of Finance/PIC. It also appears that in

continuation of the order dated 19.6.2018, the Under Secretary

(Finance/PIC) has issued a notice on 19.10.2018 for

constitution of High Power Committee to meet on 29.10.2018 at

2.30 p.m. qua the charges of procurement and supply of web

equipment in the year 2013-14 against the petitioner and two

other officers, namely Manglemjao, retired IAS and Faoemei

WP(C) No. 486 of 2021 P a g e | 16

Gonglin, IPS. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner has

submitted his written objection to the High Power Committee

denying the allegations for holding parallel inquiry.

15. It appears that as against the action initiated

against Faoemei Gonglin, IPS, he has filed

O.A.No.042/03325/2018 before the CAT, Guwahati Bench. By

the order dated 20.11.2020, the Tribunal allowed the said OA

and the operative portion of the order reads thus:

"9. In view of the above ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the undisputed fact that no a single hearing has taken place since the issuance of the impugned memorandum of charges, we deem it fit and proper to direct the respondents to conclude the departmental proceeding initiated against the applicant vide memorandum of charges dated 15.04.2018 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order positively, failing which the said departmental proceeding will stand abated. Ordered accordingly."

WP(C) No. 486 of 2021 P a g e | 17

16. Thereafter, on 29.04.2021, the Under Secretary

(DP), closed the departmental enquiry initiated against Faumei

Gonglin, IPS in connection with the alleged irregularities in the

procurement of leather belt (black) with immediate effect. While

issuing the order dated 29.04.2021, it has been stated that the

charges levelled against the officer could not be proved. The

operative portion of the order dated 29.4.2021 reads thus:

"5. Now, therefore taking into account all facts and circumstances and in compliance of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench vide order dated 20.11.2020 passed in OA.No.04/00421/2018, the Governor of Manipur, is pleased to closed the departmental enquiry instructed against Shri Faumei Gonglin, IPS (MA:04) now SP/Railways, Manipur in connection with alleged irregularities in the procurement of leather belt (black) with immediate effect."

17. The other officer, namely Manglemjao Singh, IAS

also filed OA before the Tribunal challenging the departmental

enquiry and the Tribunal by the order dated 4.11.2019 passed

an order directing the authority concerned to conclude the

WP(C) No. 486 of 2021 P a g e | 18

departmental enquiry within a period of two months. Aggrieved

by the said order, Manglemjao Singh has filed W.P.(C) No.999

of 2019 before this Court and the Division Bench by the

judgment dated 12.2.2021 quashed the order dated 4.11.2019

along with the order dated 27.2.2018 issued by the Chief

Secretary (DP) thereby initiating disciplinary proceedings

against the said officer. The operative portion of the judgment

reads thus:

"[12] In view of the above and for the reason stated hereinabove, the writ petition stands allowed with the following directions:

              (a)       The order dated 04.11.2019 passed by
                        the   Hon'ble   Central    Administrative
                        Tribunal,   Guwahati      Bench   in   OA
                        No.040/00338/2019 is quashed and set
                        aside.
              (b)       The order dated 27.02.2018 issued by
                        the Chief Secretary (DP), Government

and the enquiry proceedings initiated pursuant thereto, are quashed and set aside.

(c) The respondents are directed to release the pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner within three months from

WP(C) No. 486 of 2021 P a g e | 19

today after deducting any amount, if already paid to the petitioner.

There shall no order as to costs."

Thus, from the above, it is clear that the

disciplinary proceedings against Manglemjao Singh was closed

while the disciplinary proceedings against Faumei Gonglin

abated.

18. At this juncture, it is to be pointed out that

challenging the order of blacklisting, the supplier of uniform and

web equipment, namely M/s.MD Abdul Gani Khan, Proprietor,

has filed W.P.(C) No.444 of 2017 before this Court. By the

order dated 31.10.2017, the said writ petition was allowed

thereby quashing the order dated 9.6.2017 blacklisting the firm.

It is seen that an FIR has also been lodged against the supplier

and the supplier had challenged the same by filing quash

petition being Cril. Petn. No.2 of 2018. By the order dated

1.8.2019, the said quash petition was allowed by this Court.

From the above, it is clear that the supplier was also set free

from the allegations levelled against him by way of judicial

pronouncement.

WP(C) No. 486 of 2021 P a g e | 20

19. Since the charge against similarly situated officer,

namely, Faomei Gonglin, IPS was abated, seeking the same

benefit to be extended in the case of the petitioner, the petitioner

has filed W.P.(C) No.421 of 2021 before this Court. When the

said writ petition was taken up for hearing, the learned senior

counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner

may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file

a fresh one, if so advised. During the course of hearing, the

learned Government Advocate has also sought permission of

the Court to rely upon the counter filed in W.P.(C) No.421 of

2021 at the time of hearing of the present writ petition.

Recording the said submissions, this Court passed the following

order:

"In view of the submissions made hereinabove, the present writ petition is disposed of as being withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh one, if so advised. However, registry is directed to list the present writ petition along with WP(C) No.486 of 2021 so as to enable the learned Government Advocate to relied on the counter affidavit of the respondents filed in connection with the present case at the time of hearing of the writ petition No.486 of 2021."

WP(C) No. 486 of 2021 P a g e | 21

20. It is pertinent to point out that as against the three

sets of judicial orders, the respondent authorities have not filed

any appeal and the said orders are allowed to attain finality.

That apart, pursuant to the aforesaid order, the two officers

have also been given the benefits which they have sought.

21. Highlighting the aforesaid orders, the petitioner

contend that since the petitioner is also similarly situated with

that of the aforesaid two incumbents, particularly the officer

Faomei Gonglin, initiation of departmental enquiry against the

petitioner is liable to be set aside.

22. As stated supra, no specific counter affidavit has

been filed by the respondent authorities in this writ petition.

However, they have been permitted to rely on the counter

affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.421 of 2021 while dismissing it as

withdrawn on 19.1.2022. On a perusal of the counter affidavit,

it has been stated that the Department of Personnel vide order

dated 29.4.2021 closed the departmental enquiry instituted

against Faumei Gonglin in connection with the alleged

irregularities in the procurement of leather belt (black) in

compliance of the order of the CAT dated 20.11.2020.

WP(C) No. 486 of 2021 P a g e | 22

23. According to the respondent authorities, the

petitioner cannot plead for similarity with the officer, namely,

Faomei Gonglin, as the departmental proceedings initiated

against the petitioner are governed by CCS (CCA) Rules, while

the case of Faomei Gonglin is governed by All India Service

Rules.

24. At this juncture, it is to be pointed out that when

irregularities have been alleged, the departmental enquiry

should be common whether the officers involved are All India

Service officers or State Level officers. On a perusal of records,

it is seen that a joint/common proceedings have been held in

respect of all three charged officers. The charge against

Manglemjao Singh, IPS was that while working as IGP (Zone-

III) in the year 2013-14 he was nominated as Chairman of Line

Committee for inspection and checking of supplied items of

uniform and web equipment. As a Chairman of the Line

Committee, it is mandate to do an exhaustive checking of the

materials supplied by the suppliers. However, there is lapse

and irregularity on his part.

25. The charge against Faumei Gonglin, IPS is that

the said officer while discharging duty as Commandant 2nd MR

WP(C) No. 486 of 2021 P a g e | 23

in the year 2013-14 was nominated as Line Committee Member

for inspection and checking of the supplied items of uniforms

and equipment. As a Member of the Line Committee, it was

mandated to do an exhaustive checking of the materials

supplied. However, there is lapse and irregularity on his part.

26. The charge against the present petitioner Kumarjit

Singh, MPS is that while discharging duty as Commandant 2 nd

MR in the year 2013-14 he was nominated as a Line Committee

Member for inspection and checking of the supplied items of

uniforms. The said officer has shown utter negligence while

discharging his duty as the Member of the Line Committee.

Therefore, there is a lapse and irregularity on the part of the

petitioner.

27. The Enquiry Officer, after completing the enquiry

has submitted his report on 29.8.2019 to the Special Secretary

(DP) that the Articles of Charges are not proved against all three

officers. The operative portion of the enquiry report reads thus:

"25. To sum up, for reasons cited at the above paras, I find that the Article of Charge vide Order No.10/1/2016-IPS/DP(Pt) dated 27.2.2018 in respect of Shri S.Manglemjao

WP(C) No. 486 of 2021 P a g e | 24

Singh IPS; Order No.10/1/2017-IPS/DP dated 30.10.2017 in respect of Shri Faumei Gonglin IPS and Order No.19/3/2017-MPS/DP dated 9.11.2017 in respect of Shri M.Kumarjit Singh MPS are not proved."

28. As could be seen from the enquiry report, this

Court finds that the finding of the Enquiry Officer in respect of

the charges levelled against the three officers is based on the

documents exhibited and the statements of the prosecution and

defence witnesses. However, the disciplinary authority has not

accepted the enquiry report and the matter was referred to the

Vigilance Department.

29. Though the Enquiry Officer has submitted his

report on 29.08.2019, the disciplinary authority after waiting for

two months, on 27.11.2019 forwarded the report of the Enquiry

Officer to the fourth respondent - Director (Vigilance and Anti-

Corruption Department) for further vigilance enquiry against the

officers involved in the irregularities.

30. No such reason warranting vigilance enquiry has

been stated in the letter dated 27.11.2019 and how the

disciplinary authority came to the conclusion for vigilance

WP(C) No. 486 of 2021 P a g e | 25

enquiry has also been silent in the said letter. Nothing has been

produced before this Court to show further vigilance enquiry in

the matter. In fact, the letter dated 27.11.2019 forwarding the

Enquiry Report to the Vigilance Department for further enquiry

is without any authority. Further, the respondent authorities

have failed to show the progress of the said letter dated

27.11.2019. The Articles of Charges in respect of the petitioner

was given on 9.11.2017 and after concluding the enquiry, the

Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 29.8.2019. Nearly two

years have taken for completion of the enquiry.

31. When charge against the similarly situated officer

namely Faumei Gonglin, who was also the then Member of the

Line Committee, was abated way back on 29.4.2021 and he

was given further promotion to the post of DIGP, the withholding

of further promotion of the petitioner by citing the non-

exoneration from the alleged irregularities is unaccepted, in

view of the report of the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, this Court is

of the view that since the charge against the similarly situated

officer, namely Faomei Gonglin, IPS, has already been abated,

the same benefit ought to have been extended to the case of

the petitioner also for the reason that at the relevant point of

WP(C) No. 486 of 2021 P a g e | 26

time both the petitioner and Faomei Gonglin were functioning

as Line Committee Members. Setting free by one Line

Committee Member and levelling charge against the other

without any proof that too when the Enquiry Officer held that

charge was not proved, initiation of action against the petitioner

is arbitrary. After the report of the Enquiry Officer that the

charges against the three officers are not proved and under the

guise of further vigilance enquiry, the petitioner cannot be

deprived of his rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the

Constitution of India.

32. In Prem Nath Ball v. Registrar, High Court of

Delhi and another, (2015) 16 SCC 415, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held as under:

"33. Keeping these factors in mind, we are of the considered opinion that every employer (whether State or private) must make sincere endeavor to conclude the departmental enquiry proceedings once initiated against the delinquent employee within a reasonable time by giving priority to such proceedings and as far as possible it should be concluded within six months as an outer limit. Where it is not possible for the employer to conclude

WP(C) No. 486 of 2021 P a g e | 27

due to certain unavoidable causes arising in the proceedings within the time frame then efforts should be made to conclude within reasonably extended period depending upon the course and the nature of inquiry but not more than a year."

33. As stated supra, the power of the disciplinary

authority in forwarding the enquiry report to the Vigilance

Department for further enquiry against the officers has not been

established. No piece of material has been produced by the

respondent authorities about the progress made by the

Vigilance Department. This Court is citing the aforesaid for the

reason that keeping the enquiry years together, the delinquent

cannot be suffered or prejudiced.

34. For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the

view that the impugned Memorandum of Articles of Charges

dated 9.11.2017 along with the order dated 19.6.2018 and the

notice dated 19.10.2018, including the letter dated 27.11.2019,

in respect of the petitioner are liable to be set aside, as the

charges against the similarly situated officers have been abated

and closed respectively.

WP(C) No. 486 of 2021
                                                                P a g e | 28



35.             In the result,

                (i)     The writ petition is allowed.

                (ii)    The impugned Memorandum dated

                        09.11.2017     issued     by    the     first

                        respondent along with the impugned

                        order dated 19.6.2018 issued by the

                        second respondent and also the notice

                        dated 19.10.2018 issued by the Under

Secretary, Finance/PIC, including the

impugned letter dated 27.11.2019

addressed by the second respondent

in respect of the petitioner are

quashed.

(iii) No costs.

JUDGE

FR/NFR

Sushil

WP(C) No. 486 of 2021