Manipur High Court
Shri Y.Devendro Singh vs The Manipur Legislative Assembly on 6 May, 2022
Page 1 of 9
Item No.5-7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No.132 of 2020
Shri Y.Devendro Singh, aged about 47 years,
s/o Y.Iboyai Singh of Wangkhei Ningthem
Pukhri Mapal, PO Imphal, PS Porompat,
Imphal East District, Maniur 795001. ....Petitioner
-Versus-
The Manipur Legislative Assembly
through its Secretary, Manipur Legislative
Assembly, Imphal, Manipur 795001 ....Respondent
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR
For the Petitioner :: Mr.M.Hemchandra, Sr.Adv,
For the Respondent:: Mr.Kh.Tarunkumar, Advocate,
Date of hearing/ :: 06.05.2022
Judgment and order
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
The petitioner, while serving as Principal Private
Secretary in the Assembly Secretariat of the Manipur Legislative
Assembly, was placed under suspension with immediate effect
under Sub Rule (1)(a) of Rule 18 of the Manipur Legislative
Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service)
Rules, 1972 (hereinafter the Rules of 1972) by an order dated
WP(C) NO.132 OF 2020 ORAL
21.10.2019 issued by the Secretary, Manipur Legislative
Assembly, after a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against
him.
[2] The present writ petition has been filed praying for
quashing/cancelling/revoking the suspension order dated
21.10.2019 on the ground that the suspension of the petitioner
has not been reviewed within the stipulated period of 90 (ninety)
days as provided under Sub Rule (7) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA)
Rules, 1965 (hereinafter the Rules of 1965).
[3] Heard Mr.M.Hemchandra, learned senior counsel
assisted by Mr.Juno Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner as
well as Mr.Kh.Tarunkumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondents/Manipur Legislative Assembly.
Mr.Hemchandra, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner was placed under suspension
by the order dated 21.10.2019 and the respondents had failed to
review the suspension order before expiry of 90 (ninety) days in
terms of the stipulation contained in Sub Rule (7) of Rule 10 of the
Rules of 1965. He therefore, submits that in absence of any
review being made before expiry of ninety days, the impugned
suspension order dated 21.10.2019 stands vitiated and, therefore,
the impugned order requires to be quashed and set aside and the
petitioner be reinstated back into service, irrespective of the
disciplinary proceeding being proceeded against him. He also
places reliance in the judgment and order dated 25.07.2016
passed by this Court in WP(C) No.966 of 2015 and batch of other
writ petitions, wherein it has been held that as the suspension
orders were not reviewed within ninety days as prescribed under
WP(C) NO.132 OF 2020 ORAL
Sub Rule (6), the same has become invalid in terms of the
provisions under Sub Rule (7) of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1965.
[4] Mr.Kh.Tarunkumar, learned counsel for the
respondent on the other hand submits that the petitioner was
suspended by invoking Sub Rule (1)(a) of Rule 18 of the Rules of
1972 and not under the Rules of 1965 and, therefore, the
provisions of Sub Rule (6) and Sub Rule (7) of Rule 10 of the
Rules of 1965 is not applicable in the present case. He also
submits that the Rules of 1965 is not adopted by the Manipur
Legislative Assembly and, therefore, the suspension of the
petitioner was made under the Rules of 1972.
Learned counsel further submits that the judgment
and order dated 25.07.2016 passed in WP(C) No.966 of 2015 and
batch of other writ petitions, is not applicable in the case in hand
as the suspension of those writ petitioners in those batch of writ
petitions were not made under Sub Rule (1) of Rule 10 of the
Rules of 1965 and, therefore, the petitioners cannot rely upon the
said judgment inasmuch as the petitioners in those writ petitions
stand on a different footing from the present petitioner.
Learned counsel for the respondent has also places
reliance on (1)A Biren Singh & Ors Vs State of Manipur & Ors
reported in 2007 (2) GLT 105, (2) Nandakishore Lalbhai Mehta
Vs New Era Fabrics Pvt Ltd & Ors reported in (2015) 9 SCC
755, (3) U.P.State Electricity Board Vs Pooran Chandra
Pandey & Ors reported in (2007) 11 SCC 92, (4) Poonam Verma
& Ors Vs Delhi Development Authority reported in (2007) 13
SCC 154, (5) Collector Ongole & Anr Vs Narra Venkateswarlu
reported in (1996) 7 SCC 150, (6) State of J&K & Ors Vs Ajay
WP(C) NO.132 OF 2020 ORAL
Dogra reported in (2011) 14 SCC 243, (7) Union of India Vs
Dinesh Prashad reported in (2012) 12 SCC 63, (8) M/s Raman &
Raman Ltd Vs The State of Madras & Ors reported in AIR 1959
SC 694and (9) State of Odisha & Anr Vs Anup Kumar Senapati
& Anr reported in (2019) 19 SCC 626.
[5] In reply, Mr.M.Hemchandra, learned senior counsel
for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to Annexure A/9
and Annexure A/11appended to the Additional Affidavit filed by the
petitioner wherein one Md. Wahajuddin, Compositor of the
Assembly Secretariat was placed under suspension by invoking
Sub Rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1965 and his suspension
order was also revoked by invoking Clause (c) of Sub Rule (5) of
Rule 10 of the Rules of 1965. He has also drawn the attention of
this Court to Annexure A/10 appended to his additional affidavit
wherein the suspension order of one Shri Robert Laitonjam,
Deputy Secretary of the Assembly Secretariat was also revoked
by invoking clause (c) of Sub Rule (5) of Rule 10 of the Rules of
1965. He therefore, submits that the stand of the respondents that
the Rule of 1965 is not adopted by the Manipur Legislative
Assembly and Service Conditions of the employees of the
Manipur Legislative Assembly are governed by the Rules of 1972
stands belied and, therefore, the suspension order of the
petitioner should be quashed and set aside.
[6] I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
[7] The only consideration for this Court in the present
writ petition is whether the suspension order dated 21.10.2019
WP(C) NO.132 OF 2020 ORAL
suspending the petitioner stands vitiated with the application of
Sub Rule (6) and (7) of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1965.
[8] This Court has considered the Rules, 1972. Rule 18
of the Rules of 1972 provides for suspension of employees during
disciplinary inquiry. There is no provision under the Rules of 1972
for reviewing the suspension order or revoking the suspension
order passed under the Rules of 1972. Rule 12 of the Rules of
1972 reads as under:
"12. Other conditions of service- In respect of all
other matters regulating the conditions of service of
officers and all other persons serving in the
Secretariat for which no provision or insufficient
provision has been made in these rules they shall be
governed by such rules as are applicable to the
officers and other persons of the corresponding rank
in Manipur Government Secretariat or corresponding
posts as specified in the second schedule annexed to
these rules, subject to such modifications, variations
or exceptions, if any, in such rules as the Speaker
may after consultation with the Finance Department,
by order from time to time specify."
Further, Rule 25 of the Rules of 1972 also reads as
under:
"25. Residuary powers- Subject to the
provisions of rule 12, all matters not specifically
provided for in these rules, whether incidental or
ancillary to the provisions of these rules or otherwise,
shall be regulated in accordance with such orders as
the Speaker may, from time to time, make."
[9] This Court has also taken into consideration
Annexures-A/9, A/10 and A/11 appended to the Additional
Affidavit filed by the petitioner on 14.09.2.22.
WP(C) NO.132 OF 2020 ORAL
From the records, it is seen that the Manipur
Legislative Assembly, while suspending the said Md.Wahabuddin,
Compositor of the Assembly Secretariat and Shri Robert
Laitonjam, Deputy Secretary of the Assembly Secretariat, Manipur
Legislative Assembly, had invoked the provisions under the Rules
of 1965 for placing those officers under suspension and also they
have resorted to the Rules of 1965 for revoking the suspension
orders of the said two officers.
To a query made by this Court to the learned counsel
for the respondent as to whether there is any provision under the
Manipur Legislative Assembly that a particular set of Rules will be
applied to a particular set of employees, the learned counsel for
the respondent is unable to answer the said query.
It appears that the Manipur Legislative Assembly has
been applying the Rules of 1972 and Rules of 1965 on their own
whims while placing the employees of the Manipur Legislative
Assembly under suspension and revoking the same. In my
considered opinion, such action of the respondent to apply two
sets of Rules to the employees of the Manipur Legislative
Assembly at their own whims is arbitrary and not sustainable in
law.
[10] Coming to the Rules of 1972, there is no provision
under the said Rules for revocation of suspension orders. In
absence of such provision, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the provisions of Rule 12 of the Rules of 1972 will have to be
resorted to. It is also not disputed at the Bar that the conditions of
service of officers in the Manipur Government Secretariat is
governed by the Rules of 1965. Therefore, in absence of any
WP(C) NO.132 OF 2020 ORAL
provision for revoking the suspension order, the respondents
ought to have resorted to the provisions provided under the Rules
of 1965 for reviewing the suspension order of the petitioner as
provided under Sub Rule (7) of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1975. The
respondent unfortunately had failed to consider Rule 12 of the
Rules of 1972 and have been continuing the suspension order of
the petitioner since 21.10.2019.
[11] This Court has also considered the authorities relied
upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, in my
considered opinion, the same are not relevant to the case in hand.
[12] In the case of State of Tamil Nadu represented by
Secretary to Government (Home) Vs Promod Kumar, IPS &
Anr reported in (2018) 17 SCC 662 the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held as under :
"27. (This Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary V Union
of India: (2015) 7 SCC 291 has frowned upon the
practice of protracted suspension and held that
suspension must necessarily be for a short duration.
On the basis of the material on record, we are
convinced that no useful purpose would be served by
continuing the first respondent under suspension any
longer and that his reinstatement would not be a
threat to a fair trial. We reiterate the observation of
the High Court that the appellant State has the liberty
to appoint the first respondent in a non-sensitive
post."
Also in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs
Union of India reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 the Hon''ble
Supreme Court has held as under:
WP(C) NO.132 OF 2020 ORAL
"21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a
Suspension Order should not extend beyond three
months if within this period the Memorandum of
Charges/Charge sheet is not served on the
delinquent officer/employee; if the Memorandum of
Charges/Charge sheet is served a reasoned order
must be passed for the extension of the suspension.
As in the case in hand, the Government is free to
transfer the concerned person to any Department in
any of its offices within or outside the State so as to
sever any local or personal contact that he may have
and which he may misuse for obstructing the
investigation against him. The Government may also
prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling
records and documents till the stage of his having to
prepare his defence. We think this will adequately
safeguard the universally recognized principle of
human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall
also preserve the interest of the Government in the
prosecution. We recognize that previous Constitution
Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings
on the grounds of delay, and to set time limits to their
duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the
period of suspension has not been discussed in prior
case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of
justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central
Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal
investigation departmental proceedings are to be held
in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand
adopted by us."
[13] Under the facts and circumstances as discussed
herein above, further suspension of the petitioner stands vitiated
and, accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.10.2019, by which
the petitioner has been placed under suspension is set aside and
quashed. The respondents are directed to forthwith reinstate the
petitioner back into service.
WP(C) NO.132 OF 2020 ORAL
At this juncture, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner has been receiving less than
50% of the subsistence allowance till date.
Under the said circumstance, the respondents are
directed to verify whether the petitioner has been receiving less
than 50% of the subsistence allowance and if the same is found to
be correct, the respondents shall pay the arrear subsistence
allowance payable to the petitioner w.e.f. 21.10.2019 till the date
of his reinstatement, as provided by law, within a period of 2 (two)
months from today.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is
allowed.
No cost.
JUDGE
Priyojit
Digitally signed by
RAJKUMAR RAJKUMAR PRIYOJIT SINGH
PRIYOJIT SINGH Date: 2022.05.10 16:14:56
+05'30'
WP(C) NO.132 OF 2020 ORAL
