Manipur High Court
The State Of Manipur vs Md. Yahiya Khan on 11 March, 2022
KABOR Digitally signed
AMBAM byKABORAMBAM (Through video-conferencing)
SANDEE SANDEEP SINGH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Date: 2022.03.11
14:37:08 +05'30'
P SINGH
AT IMPHAL
WA No. 13 of 2021
The State of Manipur, represented by the Addl. Chief Secretary
(Home), Government of Manipur.
...Appellant
-Versus-
1. Md. Yahiya Khan, Rfm. No. 405077, 4th India Reserve
Battalion, Manipur, Thenguchingjin, aged about 31 years, S/o
Md. Hassimidin of Lilong Chingkkham Mamang Tamyai
Sumang, P.O. & P.S. Lilong, District - Thoubal, Manipur.
... Respondent
2. The Director General of Police, Manipur.
3. The Commandant, 4th India Reserve Battalion, Manipur.
...Proforma Respondents
with
WA No. 14 of 2021
The State of Manipur, represented by the Addl. Chief Secretary
(Home), Government of Manipur.
...Appellant
-Versus-
1. Md. Yahiya Khan, Rfm. No. 405077, 4th India Reserve
Battalion, Manipur, Thenguchingjin, aged about 31 years, S/o
Md. Hassimidin of Lilong Chingakham Mamang Tamyai
Sumang, P.O. & P.S. Lilong, District - Thoubal, Manipur.
... Respondent
2. The Director General of Police, Manipur.
3. The Commandant, 4th India Reserve Battalion,
Thenguchingjin.
...Proforma Respondents
W.A. No. No. 13 of 2021 with
W.A. No. No. 14 of 2021 Page 1
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR
For the appellant : Mr. Samarjit Hawaibam, G.A.
For respondent No.1 : Mr. M. Devananda, Advocate
Date of reserving Judgment : 04.03.2022
Date of Judgment & Order : 11.03.2022
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
Sanjay Kumar (C.J.):
[1] The State of Manipur is in appeal against two separate orders
dated 27.01.2020 allowing W.P. (C) No. 838 of 2016 and W.P. (C) No. 249 of
2017. W.A. No. 13 of 2021 arises out of WP No. 838 of 2016 while W.A. No.
14 of 2021 pertains to W.P. (C) No. 249 of 2017.
[2] Heard Mr. Samarjit Hawaibam, learned Government Advocate,
appearing for the appellant in both appeals; and Mr. M. Devananda, learned
counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1 in both appeals.
[3] Md. Yahiya Khan, respondent No. 1 in these appeals, was
appointed as a Rifleman in the 4th India Reserve Battalion at Thenguchingjin in
the State of Manipur on 21.08.2005. He was arrested on 19.05.2015 in
connection with FIR No. 68(5)2015 registered on the file of Imphal City Police
Station under Sections 121, 121A IPC; Sections 16(1)(b) and 20 of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Sections 25 (1)(a) and 25(1B) of
the Arms Act, 1959; and Sections 4 & 5 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908
W.A. No. No. 13 of 2021 with
W.A. No. No. 14 of 2021 Page 2
and remained in custody for more than 48 hours. He was accordingly placed
under suspension with immediate effect by the Commandant of the 4th India
Reserve Battalion, vide order dated 23.05.2015. The order indicated that,
during the period of his suspension, the Headquarter of Md. Yahiya Khan was
the Battalion Headquarter and he was not to leave the Headquarter without
obtaining prior permission from the Commandant. The order also stated that
he was entitled to get subsistence allowance as admissible under the rules
during the period of suspension.
Md. Yahiya Khan filed W.P. (C) No. 838 of 2016 assailing the
aforestated suspension order dated 23.05.2015 and seeking a direction to the
authorities to release his subsistence allowance from the date of suspension.
This writ petition was filed in October, 2016. An affidavit-in-opposition was
filed therein by the authorities on 01.03.2017.
[4] While matters stood thus, by order dated 25.03.2017, Md. Yahiya
Khan was dismissed from service with immediate effect. Therein, the Under
Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, stated that the Governor of
Manipur was satisfied under sub-clause (c) of the proviso to clause (2) of
Article 311 of the Constitution that in the interest of the security of the State,
it was not expedient to hold an enquiry in the case of Md. Yahiya Khan's
involvement and association with subversive activities and, on the basis of the
information available, the Governor was satisfied that his activities were such
as to warrant his dismissal from service and, accordingly, the Governor
dismissed him from service with immediate effect. In turn, the Commandant of
the 4th India Reserve Battalion issued order dated 27.03.2017 striking off the
W.A. No. No. 13 of 2021 with
W.A. No. No. 14 of 2021 Page 3
name of Md. Yahiya Khan from the strength of the unit with effect from
25.03.2017. His pay and allowances during the period of suspension were
restricted to subsistence allowances.
Md. Yahiya Khan filed W.P. (C) No. 249 of 2017 challenging the
dismissal order dated 25.03.2017 and seeking reinstatement in service.
[5] Affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the authorities in W.P. (C) No.
249 of 2017 in January, 2018. They stated to the effect that Md. Yahiya Khan
had started working with CorCom (Coordination Committee - a conglomerate
of seven valley-based militant outfits in the State of Manipur) and was one of
its active workers. Details were given of his subversive activities during
December, 2014, in relation to throwing of hand grenades, which led to his
arrest on 19.05.2015. They further stated that investigation had revealed that
Md. Yahiya Khan used to engage in activities supporting the underground
elements by transporting arms and ammunitions and was paid money. Despite
being a member of the India Reserve Battalion under the State Police
Department, he continued to work for the underground outfit. A Committee of
Advisors was stated to have looked into the applicability of clause (c) of the
second proviso to Article 311(2) and recommended that it would be
inexpedient to hold an inquiry in the interest of the security of the State. The
recommendation of this Committee was placed before the Home Department
and, as required under the Rules of Business of the State Government, it was
submitted to the Governor of Manipur for obtaining approval and satisfaction,
through the Chief Minister, State of Manipur. The Governor of Manipur
expressed satisfaction with the recommendation of the Committee on
W.A. No. No. 13 of 2021 with
W.A. No. No. 14 of 2021 Page 4
19.09.2016 and thereupon, the Home Department, Government of Manipur,
issued the dismissal order on 25.03.2017.
[6] By Judgment dated 27.01.2020, a learned Judge allowed W.P.
(C) No. 838 of 2016 on the ground that a review for modification or revocation
of the suspension was not done within 90 days from the date of the order of
suspension in terms of Rules 10(6) & 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and
the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others vs.
Deepak Mali [(2010) 2 SCC 222]. The learned Judge further directed that
subsistence allowance should be paid to him after he furnished a certificate to
the effect that he was not employed anywhere during the period of
suspension. This certificate was to be furnished within a week and the
authorities were directed to make payment within a time frame thereafter.
[7] By a separate Judgment passed on the very same day, the
learned Judge also allowed W.P. (C) No. 249 of 2017. The learned Judge
opined that some reasons had to be recorded for dispensing with a
departmental enquiry in terms of the Article 311(2) of the Constitution and
found that no reasons were forthcoming either from the dismissal order or
from the counter. Further, the learned Judge was of the opinion that the
mandate of Article 311(2)(c) was that the satisfaction must be of the President
or of the Governor, as the case may be, and such satisfaction must be
personal and the power in that regard could not be delegated to any other
authority. The learned Judge opined that, as a Committee of Advisors had
made a recommendation and the Governor merely approved the same, it
would not suffice to meet the requirement contemplated under Article
W.A. No. No. 13 of 2021 with
W.A. No. No. 14 of 2021 Page 5
311(2)(c). On these grounds, the learned Judge held that the authorities had
failed to satisfy the Court that the impugned dismissal order was passed in the
interest of security and set it aside. The authorities were directed to reinstate
Md. Yahiya Khan into service and give him a posting other than in the post
which he was holding prior to the order of his dismissal. The period from the
date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement was directed to be considered
as in service for the purposes of pensionary benefits, if any.
The State of Manipur is aggrieved by these two judgments.
[8] Article 311 of the Constitution deals with dismissal, removal or
reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a
State. It reads as under:
'(1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India
service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a
State, shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by
which he was appointed.
(2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in
rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges
against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of
those charges.'
The first proviso is not of relevance presently. The second
proviso to Article 311(2) is germane to this adjudication and it reads thus: -
'Provided further that this clause shall not apply -
(a) 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; or
(b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to
reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that
authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or
(c) where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that
in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such
inquiry.'
W.A. No. No. 13 of 2021 with
W.A. No. No. 14 of 2021 Page 6
Article 311(3) provides that if, in respect of any such person as
aforesaid, a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold such
inquiry as is referred to in clause (2), the decision thereon of the authority
empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank shall
be final.
[9] The ambit and contours of the aforesaid Constitutional provision
are well settled, given the abundance of case law thereon. The three clauses
of the second proviso to Article 311(2) were considered by a Constitution
Bench in Union of India and another vs. Tulsiram Patel [(1985) 3 SCC
398]. This decision makes it clear that clauses (b) and (c) of the second
proviso operate independently and in different spheres. The Bench pointed out
that under clause (b), the satisfaction is of the disciplinary authority while
under clause (c), it is of the President or the Governor of a State, as the case
may be. Further, under clause (b), the satisfaction is with respect to it not
being reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry, while under clause (c), it is
with respect to it not being expedient in the interest of the security of the
State to hold an inquiry. The Bench pointed out that clause (b) expressly
requires that the reasons for dispensing with an inquiry should be recorded in
writing but clause (c) does not require it, either expressly or impliedly.
The Constitution Bench also observed that the question, under
clause (c), would not be whether the security of the State has actually been
affected or not, as the expression used in that clause is 'in the interest of the
security of the State' and it was pointed out that the interest of the security of
the State may be affected by actual acts or even the likelihood of such acts
W.A. No. No. 13 of 2021 with
W.A. No. No. 14 of 2021 Page 7
taking place. The Bench further pointed that what is required under clause (c)
is not the satisfaction of the President or the Governor that the interest of the
security of the State is or will be affected but the satisfaction that in the
interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold an inquiry as
contemplated by Article 311(2). The satisfaction so reached by the President
or the Governor, per the Bench, must necessarily be a subjective satisfaction
and the reasons for the satisfaction cannot therefore be required to be
recorded in the order of dismissal nor can they be made public.
As regards the remedies available to an aggrieved Government
servant, the Constitution Bench held that an appeal or revision, as the case
may be, would lie in the case of a dismissal falling under clauses (a) and (b)
and in the event such a person invokes the Court's power of judicial review, it
would be open to the Court to interfere if the penalty imposed is found to be
arbitrary or grossly excessive or out of proportion to the offence committed or
not warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case. The Bench further
opined that if it is a dismissal under clause (c), the satisfaction of the President
or the Governor cannot be challenged in an appeal or revision.
[10] Be it noted that in Sardari Lal vs. Union of India [(1971) 1
SCC 411], the Supreme Court had held that the satisfaction of the President
or the Governor under Article 311(2)(c) was his personal satisfaction and he
himself must reach such satisfaction as delegation was not possible. However,
this decision was overruled by a Constitution Bench in Samsher Singh vs.
State of Punjab [(1974) 2 SCC 831]. It was pointed out therein that the
President or the Governor would act upon the advice of the Council of
W.A. No. No. 13 of 2021 with
W.A. No. No. 14 of 2021 Page 8
Ministers and, therefore, it would not be necessary that the satisfaction must
be personal to the President or the Governor, as the case may be. This legal
position was affirmed in Tulsiram Patel (supra).
[11] In A.K. Kaul and another vs. Union of India and another
[(1995) 4 SCC 73], the Supreme Court observed that in a case where the
validity of an order passed under clause (c) of the second proviso to Article
311(2) is assailed before a Court, it would be open to the Court to examine
whether the satisfaction of the President or the Governor is vitiated by
malafides or is based on wholly extraneous or irrelevant grounds, and for that
purpose, the Government is obliged to place before the Court the relevant
material on the basis of which satisfaction was arrived at. This decision
indicates the scope of judicial review in a case pertaining to clause (c) of the
second proviso to Article 311(2)
[12] In Union of India and another vs. M.M. Sharma [(2011)
11 SCC 293], the Supreme Court considered whether it would be necessary
to disclose reasons in a case falling under clause (c) to the second proviso to
Article 311(2). The High Court had held to that effect but the Supreme Court
reversed the view and observed that it is not mandatory to disclose reasons as
to why the President or the Governor, as the case may be, had arrived at the
satisfaction that it was not expedient in the interest of the security of the State
to hold a departmental inquiry. The original record was placed before the
Supreme Court in that case and having perused the same, the Supreme Court
noted that a High-Level Committee considered the entire record and came to
the conclusion that action could be taken for dismissal under clause (c) to the
W.A. No. No. 13 of 2021 with
W.A. No. No. 14 of 2021 Page 9
second proviso to Article 311(2). The same was accepted by the President and
thereupon, the order of dismissal came to be passed.
[13] It is therefore clear that there is no necessity for reasons to be
recorded or disclosed in a case falling under clause (c) of the second proviso
to Article 311(2). In fact, in para 25 of the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 249 of
2017, the learned Judge himself observed that there is no requirement to
record any reason while applying sub-clause (c). However, this paragraph
contradicted para 21 of the judgment, wherein the learned Judge observed
that reasons were not found. Significantly, the learned Judge did not call for
the original record pertaining to the case and examine the same, though the
edict in A.K. Kaul (supra), requires the Court to examine such record.
[14] In the light of this settled legal regime, we are not inclined to
accept the contention of Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel, that clause (c) of
the second proviso to Article 311(2) would come into play only after operation
of clause (b) thereof. As already pointed out supra, both these clauses operate
in different spheres altogether and through different authorities. As such, there
is no question of clause (b) being applied as a condition precedent for clause
(c) to come into operation. Learned counsel is unable to cite any case law to
support this bombastic proposition. In consequence, all the judgments cited
by the learned counsel relating to clause (b) of the second proviso to Article
311(2) are eschewed from consideration, as they have no relevance
whatsoever to a case falling under clause (c) thereof.
[15] Further, in the light of the settled legal position, the argument of
the learned counsel that absence of reasons would invalidate the order of
W.A. No. No. 13 of 2021 with
W.A. No. No. 14 of 2021 Page 10
dismissal passed against Md. Yahiya Khan does not hold water. All that is
required is that there must be application of mind as to whether or not it is
expedient in the interest of the security of the State to hold an inquiry against
Md. Yahiya Khan and if such subjective satisfaction has been arrived at by the
Governor of the State of Manipur, without any malafides or extraneous
considerations, it is not for this Court to sit in appeal over the same or
substitute its own subjective opinion.
[16] Office Memorandum dated 16.08.2008 was issued by the
Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division),
Government of Manipur, setting out instructions apropos Government servants
engaged in or associated with subversive activities and revising the procedure
to deal with them. This Memorandum provided for a Committee of Advisors to
be constituted, comprising the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur; the
Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur; the Director General of
Police, Manipur; the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative
Reforms; the Secretary (Law); the Secretary of the Department concerned
with the case; and the Deputy Director General (SIB). This Committee was to
decide first whether the allegations made against the suspect should be
disclosed to him and he should be given an opportunity to furnish his
explanation or whether, on the grounds of national security or the nature of
the allegations made, it would not be advisable or necessary to disclose the
allegations against the suspect or to call upon his reply thereto.
The Committee has to record its reasons as to the adequacy and
veracity of the evidence available and makes its recommendation as to
W.A. No. No. 13 of 2021 with
W.A. No. No. 14 of 2021 Page 11
whether there is no case for taking action against the official or whether action
may be taken for dismissal or removal from service under proviso (c) to Article
311(2) of the Constitution. If the latter recommendation is made by the
Committee, then the same should be placed before the Home Minister by the
Home Department and then, the Minister-in-Charge of the Department
concerned. In case the Minister-in-Charge agrees with the Home Minister, the
Secretary of the said Ministry is to issue orders endorsing a copy of the order
to the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and the Home
Department. In the event of disagreement between the Ministers, the matter
is to be placed before the Chief Minister for final orders and then forwarded to
the Governor, State of Manipur, for appropriate further orders.
[17] Perusal of the original record placed before this Court reflects
thus: Letter dated 24.06.2015 was addressed to the Superintendent of Police,
Imphal West District, Manipur, by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Imphal,
intimating the factum of the arrest of Md. Yahiya Khan in relation to FIR No.
68 (5)2015 of City P.S. u/Ss. 121/121-A IPC, 20/16(1)(b) UA (P) Act, 25(1)(a)/
(1-B) Arms Act & 4/5 Expl. Subs. Act. Thereupon, letter dated 29.06.2015
seems to have been addressed by the Superintendent of Police, Imphal West,
to the Commandant, 4th India Reserve Battalion, Manipur, Thenguchingjin,
informing him that Md. Yahiya Khan had been arrested in connection with his
involvement in FIR No. 68(5)2015 of the City Police Station. The Commandant
accordingly addressed letter dated 16.07.2015 to the Inspector General of
Police (Adm.), Manipur, submitting relevant documents for taking necessary
action under Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution in relation to Md. Yahiya
W.A. No. No. 13 of 2021 with
W.A. No. No. 14 of 2021 Page 12
Khan's involvement in subversive activities endangering the security of the
State.
The Director General of Police, Manipur, then addressed letter
dated 20.01.2016 to the Home Department, Government of Manipur,
requesting that necessary action be taken against Md. Yahiya Khan of the 4 th
IRB and two other Riflemen of the 5th IRB under Article 311(2)(c) of the
Constitution for their involvement in subversive activities endangering the
security of the State. The Committee of Advisors, constituted under the OM
dated 16.08.2008, convened a meeting on 19.09.2016 to look into the matter.
After considering the Note put up before it in relation to these three personnel,
the Committee recorded Minutes of the Meeting dated 19.09.2016, opining
that it was satisfied that the accused officials had willingly indulged in the
activities of an organization declared unlawful which were prejudicial to the
security of the State and as such, it was not advisable to disclose the
allegations against them or call upon them to reply thereto. The Committee
accordingly recommended their dismissal from service under Article 311(2)(c)
of the Constitution as it was not expedient to hold a departmental inquiry in
the interest of the security of the State as their prejudicial activities affected
the security of the State.
The Note File reflects that the recommendation of the Committee
of Advisors was forwarded the Home Department and after it was cleared and
the Chief Minister, State of Manipur, endorsed the same, it was sent to the
Governor's Secretariat for approval. The Governor affixed her signature in the
Note File on 17.01.2017, duly approving the proposal to remove the three
W.A. No. No. 13 of 2021 with
W.A. No. No. 14 of 2021 Page 13
personnel, including Md. Yahiya Khan, under clause (c) of the second proviso
to Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Pursuant thereto, the impugned order of
dismissal dated 25.03.2017 came to be issued.
[18] Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel, would contend that the
sequence of events set out in the affidavit-in-opposition of January, 2018,
demonstrates that the authorities acted with malafides. He would point out
that the affidavit-in-opposition dated 01.03.2017 field in W.P. (C) No. 838 of
2016 did not disclose the factum of the Governor having expressed satisfaction
as long back as on 19.09.2016 with regard to the inexpediency of holding a
departmental inquiry against Md. Yahiya Khan and the urgency with which the
Commandant struck off the name of Md. Yahiya Khan from the strength of the
4th India Reserve Battalion unit at Thenguchingjin, i.e., two days after the date
of the dismissal order, further demonstrated the malafide nature of the action.
[19] We find no merit in this argument. The subject matter of W.P.
(C) No. 838 of 2016 was the suspension of Md. Yahiya Khan from service and
his entitlement to subsistence allowance. The issue of a departmental inquiry
being held against him did not arise for consideration in the said writ petition
and, therefore, there was no requirement for the authorities to say anything
about it in their affidavit-in-opposition filed on 01.03.2017. That apart, the
date '19.09.2016' mentioned in the other affidavit pertained to the
recommendation of the Committee of Advisors and not the approval by the
Governor. The wording in the affidavit is misleading, no doubt, but the original
record reflects that the Governor's approval was on 17.01.2017. However, the
file was in circulation since September, 2015, and there was no undue urgency
W.A. No. No. 13 of 2021 with
W.A. No. No. 14 of 2021 Page 14
or haste in dealing with the matter. Further, once the order of dismissal came
to be passed on the strength of the satisfaction expressed by the Governor,
the action of the Commandant in giving effect to it within two days can hardly
be said to be a sign of undue urgency or haste. As it is a uniformed service,
such measures have to be taken without any delay.
[20] The further argument of Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel, is
that no assistance was rendered by the Council of Ministers to the Governor,
as spelt out in Tulsiram Patel (supra). This argument also does not merit
acceptance. The original record reflects that the recommendation of the
Committee of Advisors was looked into by the Home Minister and thereafter,
by the Chief Minister himself. Advice of the Council of Ministers does not mean
that each and every member of the Cabinet has to be consulted on issues
arising under clause (c) of the second proviso to Article 311(2). By the very
nature of the confidentiality to be maintained, it would suffice if the concerned
Minister looks into the matter and submits inputs to the Governor.
[21] Lastly, the finding of the learned Judge that the Governor's
satisfaction has to be personal and could not be delegated runs contra to the
law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Samsher Singh (supra). Further,
the constitution of a Committee of Advisors and the reliance placed by the
Governor upon the recommendation of such Committee stands protected by
the edict of the Supreme Court in M. M. Sharma (supra). The findings of the
learned Judge to the contrary are therefore unsustainable.
[22] On the above analysis, we find that the order of dismissal passed
against Md. Yahiya Khan did not merit interference and the learned Judge
W.A. No. No. 13 of 2021 with
W.A. No. No. 14 of 2021 Page 15
erred in setting it aside. We accordingly set aside the Judgment & Order dated
27.01.2020 in W.P. (C) No. 249 of 2017. As we have upheld the dismissal
order dated 25.03.2017, the question of reinstating Md. Yahiya Khan in service
in terms of the said Judgment & Order no longer arises. Further, his
suspension from service stands merged with his dismissal from service
thereafter. However, the learned Judge held the suspension to be illegal on
the ground that review thereof had not been undertaken under Rules 10(6) &
10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. In this regard, it may be noted that the
very applicability of the said rules was contested by the authorities but the
learned Judge did not render a decision thereon. That issue was stated to be
pending consideration before this Court, in terms of the affidavit-in-opposition
filed in that writ petition. Therefore, the finding of the learned Judge that the
suspension of Md. Yahiya Khan stood invalidated on the strength of the said
rules cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
[23] Further, as regards the entitlement of Md. Yahiya Khan to
subsistence allowance, it may be noted that Fundamental Rule 53(2)
specifically states that no payment of subsistence allowance shall be made
unless the Government servant furnishes a certificate that he is not engaged in
any other employment, business, profession or vocation.
In the affidavit-in-opposition filed in W.P. (C) No. 838 of 2016,
the authorities specifically stated that though he was asked to furnish such a
certificate, Md. Yahiya Khan failed to do so. No rejoinder was filed in response
to this affidavit-in-opposition. Though the learned Judge fixed a time frame for
submission of such a certificate, no material has been placed before us in
W.A. No. No. 13 of 2021 with
W.A. No. No. 14 of 2021 Page 16
proof of its submission within that time. However, as subsistence allowance is
a matter of right conferred upon a suspended employee, it is not open to the
authorities to deny him the benefit of such subsistence allowance during the
period of his suspension. The Commandant, 4th IRB, also made this clear in his
final Order dated 27.03.2017.
We accordingly grant one week's time to Md. Yahiya Khan to
submit a certificate in terms of FR 53(2). In the event he does so, the same
shall be verified and if found to be true and acceptable, the authorities shall
release the subsistence allowance payable to Md. Yahiya Khan for the period
of his suspension, prior to his dismissal from service, within one month of the
submission of such certificate.
[24] In consequence, W.A. No. 13 of 2021 is allowed in part, setting
aside the direction of the learned Judge, in the Judgment & Order dated
27.01.2020 in W. P. (C) No. 838 of 2016, invalidating the suspension order
and directing reinstatement of Md. Yahiya Khan in service.
However, the portion of the order relating to payment of
subsistence allowance to Md. Yahiya Khan for the period of his suspension
from service shall stand confirmed, subject to Md. Yahiya Khan furnishing a
certificate as required under FR 53(2) with one week from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order and in the event the same is found to be true and
acceptable, the authorities shall release the subsistence allowance due and
payable to him for the period of his suspension from service prior to his
dismissal from service, within one month from the date of submission of such
certificate.
W.A. No. No. 13 of 2021 with
W.A. No. No. 14 of 2021 Page 17
W.A. No. 14 of 2021 is allowed, setting aside the Judgment &
Order dated 27.01.2020 in W. P. (C) No. 249 of 2017 and confirming the
dismissal order dated 25.03.2017 passed against Md. Yahiya Khan.
The original record shall be returned to an authorized
Government Advocate by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court under proper
acknowledgment.
In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
A copy of the order shall be supplied online or through whatsapp
to the learned counsel for the parties.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
FR
Sandeep
W.A. No. No. 13 of 2021 with
W.A. No. No. 14 of 2021 Page 18
