Manipur High Court
Shri Dr. S. Bikramaditya Meitei vs The State Of Manipur Represented ... on 27 May, 2022
1
Digitally
JOHN signed by
JOHN TELEN
TELEN KOM
Date: IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
2022.05.27
KOM 14:16:19
+05'30'
AT IMPHAL
WP(C)No. 53 of 2022
Shri Dr. S. Bikramaditya Meitei, aged about 59 years, S/o (L) S.
Bhuban Chandra Singh, a resident of Kwakheithel Laishram
Leikai, PO Imphal, PS Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur,
Pin-795001.
....... Petitioner
- Versus -
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Principal
Secretary(Health & Family Welfare) Government of Manipur, New
Secretariat Building, South Block, PO & PS Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur-795001.
2. The Director, J.N Institute of Medical Sciences, Government of
Manipur, Porompat, Imphal East, Pin-795005.
.... Respondents
WP(c)No.53 of 2022 with WP(c)No.947 of 2021 Page 1
With WP(C)No. 947 of 2021
Shri Dr. S. Bikramaditya Meitei, aged about 59 years, S/o (L) S.
Bhuban Chandra Singh, a resident of Kwakheithel Laishram
Leikai, PO Imphal, PS Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur,
Pin-795001.
....... Petitioner
- Versus -
3. The State of Manipur represented by the Principal
Secretary(Health & Family Welfare) Government of Manipur, New
Secretariat Building, South Block, PO & PS Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur-795001.
4. The Director, J.N Institute of Medical Sciences, Government of
Manipur, Porompat, Imphal East, Pin-795005.
.... Respondents
WP(c)No.53 of 2022 with WP(c)No.947 of 2021 Page 2
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioner : Mrs. G. Pushpa, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. Lenin Hijam, AG.
Date of reserved : 16.05.2022
Date of Judgment & Order : 27.05.2022.
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(CAV)
[1] In W.P.(C) No.947 of 2021, the petitioner prayed for issuance of a
writ of certiorari or mandamus to quash the impugned suspension order bearing
No.01/776/Departmental Enquiry/JNIMS/21, dated 26.6.2021 along with the
Memordandum dated 26.6.2021 issued by the Principal Secretary (H & FW),
Government of Manipur.
[2] In W.P. (C) No.53 of 2022, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ
of certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned order dated 21.12.2021
issued by the Additional Chief Secretary (H & FW)/Chairman, Executive
Committee JNIMS Society, by which the earlier suspension of the petitioner
WP(c)No.53 of 2022 with WP(c)No.947 of 2021 Page 3
was extended for a further period of 180 days with effect from 24.8.2021 by the
Review Committee in violation of the Rules.
[3] It is the case of the petitioner that since his appointment to the
post of Senior Resident in the Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Medical Sciences
Society (JNIMS) vide proceedings dated 20.11.2011 in the Department of
Psychiatry, he was serving in the said capacity without any promotion. It is
averred that since he has been functioning as the General Secretary of
Teacher's Association JNIMS, he took part in various agitations pertaining to
violation of fundamental rights of the members of the association and,
therefore, he was targeted and singled out by the authorities of JNIMS and an
order of suspension was passed on 26.6.2021. Along with the order of
suspension, a memorandum of charges dated 26.6.2021 was issued, which are
the subject matter of challenge in W.P. (C) No.947 of 2021.
[4] It is further stated that despite an order dated 21.12.2021 passed
in W.P. (C) No.947 of 2021 to the effect that "the pendency of the writ petition
shall not preclude the respondents from considering and disposing of the
representation dated 29.11.2021" and the same being communicated to the
official respondents by way of a legal notice dated 23.12.2021, the respondents
did not consider the representation of the petitioner dated 29.11.2021.
WP(c)No.53 of 2022 with WP(c)No.947 of 2021 Page 4
However, it is stated that the respondents vide order dated 21.12.2021, which
was alleged to be communicated to the petitioner on 30.12.2021, extended the
suspension period of the petitioner for a period of 180 days from 24.8.2021.
[5] It is the contention of Ms. Pushpa, the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the proceedings dated 21.12.2021 extending the period of
suspension has been passed as an afterthought pursuant to the order dated
21.12.2021 passed in W.P. (C) No.947 of 2021, antedating the proceedings.
[6] The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
the order of suspension dated 26.6.2021 was not extended after review within
a period of 90 days as prescribed under Rule 10(7) of the Central Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and, therefore, the same is not
valid in the eye of law.
[7] The last argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner
is that the Government of Manipur imposed lockdown from 8.5.2021 to
18.7.2021 and thereafter it was lifted and, even according to the office
memorandum dated 30.3.2020, the Government of India, Department of
WP(c)No.53 of 2022 with WP(c)No.947 of 2021 Page 5
Personnel and Training, decided not to count the period of the lockdown for the
purpose of adherence to the timeline for review of order of suspension before
its expiry date, and thereby stipulated that after the lockdown is lifted, the task
to be completed within 90 days, should be completed within 90 days after the
lifting of lockdown. However, within 90 days, the order of suspension was not
reviewed and, therefore, it is invalid.
[8] In reply, Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned Advocate General appearing for
the second respondent submitted that the involvement of the petitioner in
agitations launched by the Teacher's Association has nothing to do with the
suspension order. He added that the departmental enquiry is under way and
the Inquiring and Presenting Officers have been appointed and such
information had also been communicated to the petitioner.
[9] Learned counsel for the second respondent further submitted that
the delay in reviewing the suspension order was unintentional, inasmuch as
JNIMS was in the forefront in fighting the pandemic by having more than 100
beds dedicated to Covid treatment.
WP(c)No.53 of 2022 with WP(c)No.947 of 2021 Page 6
[10] Heard both the counsels for the parties and perused the
documents available on record.
[11] To proceed with the matter, at the outset, it is appropriate to
reproduce Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules herein below:-
"10. Suspension
(1) The Appointing Authority or any authority to which it is
subordinate or the Disciplinary Authority or any other authority
empowered in that behalf by the President, by general or
special order, may place a Government servant under
suspension-
(a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is
contemplated or is pending; or
(aa) where, in the opinion of the authority aforesaid, he has
engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest of the
security of the State; or
(b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence
is under investigation, inquiry or trial:
Provided that, except in case of an order of suspension made
by the Comptroller and Auditor-General in regard to a member
WP(c)No.53 of 2022 with WP(c)No.947 of 2021 Page 7
of the Indian Audit and Accounts Service in regard to as
Assistant Accountant-General or equivalent (other than a
regular member of the Indian Audit and Accounts Service),
where the order of suspension is made by an authority lower
than the Appointing Authority, such authority shall forthwith
report to the Appointing Authority the circumstances in which
the order was made.
(2) A Government servant shall be deemed to have been
place under suspension by an order of Appointing Authority-
(a) with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained
in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a
period exceeding forty-eight hours;
(b) with effect from the date of his conviction, if, in the event of
a conviction for an offence, he is sentenced to a term of
imprisonment exceeding forty-eight hours and is not forthwith
dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired consequent to
such conviction.
WP(c)No.53 of 2022 with WP(c)No.947 of 2021 Page 8
EXPLANATION.-The period of forty-eight hours referred to in
Clause (b) of this sub-rule shall be computed from the
commencement of the imprisonment after the conviction and
for this purpose, intermittent periods of imprisonment, if any,
shall be taken into account.
(3) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory
retirement from service imposed upon a Government servant
under suspension is set aside in appeal or on review under
these rules and the case is remitted for further inquiry or action
or with any other directions, the order of his suspension shall
be deemed to have continued in force, on and from the date
of the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory
retirement and shall remain in force until further orders.
(4) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory
retirement from service imposed upon a Government servant
is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or
by a decision of a Court of Law and the Disciplinary Authority,
WP(c)No.53 of 2022 with WP(c)No.947 of 2021 Page 9
on a consideration of the circumstances of the case, decides
to hold a further inquiry against him on the allegations on
which the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory
retirement was originally imposed, the Government servant
shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by
the Appointing Authority from the date of the original order of
dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall
continue to remain under suspension until further orders:
Provided that no such further inquiry shall be ordered unless
it is intended to meet a situation where the Court has passed
an order purely on technical grounds without going into the
merits of the case.
(5)(a) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-rule (7), any
order of suspension made or deemed to have been made
under this rule shall continue to remain in force until it is
modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so.
(b) Where a Government servant is suspended or is deemed
to have been suspended (whether in connection with any
WP(c)No.53 of 2022 with WP(c)No.947 of 2021 Page 10
disciplinary proceeding or otherwise), and any other
disciplinary proceeding is commenced against him during the
continuance of that suspension, the authority competent to
place him under suspension may, for reasons to be recorded
by him in writing, direct that the Government servant shall
continue to be under suspension until the termination of all or
any of such proceedings.
(c) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been
made under this rule may at any time be modified or revoked
by the authority which made or is deemed to have made the
order or by any authority to which that authority is subordinate.
(6) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been
made under this rule shall be reviewed by the authority
which is competent to modify or revoke the suspension
before expiry of ninety days from the effective date of
suspension on the recommendation of the Review
Committee constituted for the purpose and pass orders
either extending or revoking the suspension. Subsequent
WP(c)No.53 of 2022 with WP(c)No.947 of 2021 Page 11
reviews shall be made before expiry of the extended
period of suspension. Extension of suspension shall not
be for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty days at
a time.
(7) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been
made under sub-rule (1) or (2) of this rule shall not be
valid after a period of ninety days unless it is extended
after review, for a further period before the expiry of
ninety days.
Provided that no such review of suspension shall be
necessary in the case of deemed suspension under sub-rule
(2), if the Government servant continues to be under
suspension" at the time of completion of ninety days of
suspension and the ninety days' period in such case will count
from the date the Government servant detained in custody is
released from detention or the date on which the fact of his
release from detention is intimated to his appointing authority,
whichever is later."
WP(c)No.53 of 2022 with WP(c)No.947 of 2021 Page 12
[emphasis supplied]
[12] There is no quarrel in respect of the interpretation of the provisions
of Rule 10(6) and (7) of CCS (CCA) Rules which unambiguous postulate that
an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under the Rules
shall be reviewed by the competent authority to modify or revoke the
suspension, before expiry of 90 days from the date of order of suspension, and
if the said order of suspension is not reviewed/extended for further period as
provided under sub-rule (6), the order of suspension shall cease to exist after
expiry of 90 days in view of proviso to sub-rule (7) of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA)
Rules. However, in the case on hand, the reason given by the respondent
authorities is that over 100 beds were dedicated to Covid treatment in JNIMS
and, therefore, there was a delay.
[13] The learned counsel for the petitioner placed heavy reliance on
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Union of India and others v.
Dipak Mali, (2010) 2 SCC 222, wherein it has been held as under:
"10. Having carefully considered the submissions made on
behalf of the parties and having also considered the relevant
dates relating to suspension of the Respondent and when the
WP(c)No.53 of 2022 with WP(c)No.947 of 2021 Page 13
Petitioner's case came up for review on 20th October, 2004,
we are inclined to agree with the views expressed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, as confirmed by the High
Court, that having regard to the amended provisions of Sub-
rules (6) and (7) of Rule 10, the review for modification or
revocation of the order of suspension was required to be done
before the expiry of 90 days from the date of order of
suspension and as categorically provided under Sub-rule (7),
the order of suspension made or deemed would not be
valid after a period of 90 days unless it was extended after
review for a further period of 90 days.
11. The case sought to be made out on behalf of the petitioner,
Union of India as to the cause of delay in reviewing the
Respondent's case, is not very convincing. Section 19(4) of
the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 speaks of abatement
of proceedings once an original application under the said Act
was admitted. In this case, what is important is that by
operation of Sub-rule (6) of Rule 10 of the 1965 Rules, the
WP(c)No.53 of 2022 with WP(c)No.947 of 2021 Page 14
order of suspension would not survive after the period of 90
days unless it was extended after review. Since admittedly
the review had not been conducted within 90 days from
the date of suspension, it became invalid after 90 days,
since neither was there any review nor extension within
the said period of 90 days. Subsequent review and
extension, in our view, could not revive the order which
had already become invalid after the expiry of 90 days
from the date of suspension."
[emphasis supplied]
[14] Following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dipak Mali
(supra), this Court in Nasib Ali v. State of Manipur and another, 2021 (3)
MnLJ 415, held as under:
"21. Thus, it is clear that the review for modification or
revocation of the order of suspension is required to be done
before the expiry of 90 days from the date of suspension and
sub-rule (7) of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 clearly
provided that the order of suspension made or deemed would
WP(c)No.53 of 2022 with WP(c)No.947 of 2021 Page 15
not be valid after a period of 90 days unless it was extended
after review for a further period of 90 days. Admittedly, it is not
the case of the respondents that the suspension of the
petitioner was extended after review. Thus, there is merit in
the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner
that the suspension order has not been reviewed by the
respondent authorities and as such the suspension order
dated 25.9.2012 being prolonging in nature and is liable to be
quashed."
[15] In the case on hand, the order of suspension was initially passed
on 26.6.2021 and the same was extended for a further period of 180 days only
vide order dated 21.12.2021. That is almost after six months. Even excluding
the period of limitation during the lockdown as stipulated in the official
memorandum dated 30.3.2020, the order of review of the suspension was
passed way beyond the statutory period. Of course, there is a justifiable reason
shown by the respondents for the delay in reviewing the order of suspension.
Admittedly, the order of suspension dated 26.6.2021 was passed when the
lockdown was in force, but the review of suspension order was not done within
WP(c)No.53 of 2022 with WP(c)No.947 of 2021 Page 16
the statutory period or the extended period owing to the fight against the Covid
in JNIMS. Therefore, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances and the
reason given by the respondents, the order of suspension and the
consequential extension cannot be held to be invalid.
[16] Moreover, it is trite law that suspension is not a punishment, but a
mere suspending of the relationship between the employer and the employee.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal,
(2013) 16 SCC 147, emphatically held as under:
"14. The scope of interference by the Court with the order of
suspension has been examined by the Court in a large
number of cases, particularly in State of M.P. v. Sardul Singh,
(1970) 1 SCC 108; P.V. Srinivasa Sastry v. Comptroller &
Auditor General of India, (1993) 1 SCC 419; Director General,
ESI & Anr. v. T. Abdul Razak, AIR 1996 SC 2292; Kusheshwar
Dubey v. M/s Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1988 SC
2118; Delhi Cloth General Mills vs. Kushan Bhan, AIR 1960
SC 806; U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad & Ors. v.
Sanjeev Rajan, (1993) Supp. (3) SCC 483; State of Rajasthan
WP(c)No.53 of 2022 with WP(c)No.947 of 2021 Page 17
v. B.K. Meena & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 417; Secretary to Govt.,
Prohibition and Excise Department v. L. Srinivasan, (1996) 3
SCC 157; and Allahabad Bank & Anr. v. Deepak Kumar Bhola,
(1997) 4 SCC 1, wherein it has been observed that even if a
criminal trial or enquiry takes a long time, it is ordinarily not
open to the court to interfere in case of suspension as it
is in the exclusive domain of the competent authority who
can always review its order of suspension being an
inherent power conferred upon them by the provisions
of Article 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and while
exercising such a power, the authority can consider the
case of an employee for revoking the suspension order,
if satisfied that the criminal case pending would be
concluded after an unusual delay for no fault of the
employee concerned. Where the charges are baseless,
mala fide or vindictive and are framed only to keep the
delinquent employee out of job, a case for judicial review
is made out. But in a case where no conclusion can be
arrived at without examining the entire record in question
WP(c)No.53 of 2022 with WP(c)No.947 of 2021 Page 18
and in order that the disciplinary proceedings may
continue unhindered the court may not interfere. In case
the court comes to the conclusion that the authority is not
proceeding expeditiously as it ought to have been and it
results in prolongation of sufferings for the delinquent
employee, the court may issue directions. The court may,
in case the authority fails to furnish proper explanation
for delay in conclusion of the enquiry, direct to complete
the enquiry within a stipulated period. However, mere
delay in conclusion of enquiry or trial can not be a ground
for quashing the suspension order, if the charges are
grave in nature. But, whether the employee should or
should not continue in his office during the period of
enquiry is a matter to be assessed by the disciplinary
authority concerned and ordinarily the court should not
interfere with the orders of suspension unless they are
passed in mala fide and without there being even a prima
facie evidence on record connecting the employee with
the misconduct in question.
WP(c)No.53 of 2022 with WP(c)No.947 of 2021 Page 19
Suspension is a device to keep the delinquent out of the
mischief range. The purpose is to complete the
proceedings unhindered. Suspension is an interim
measure in aid of disciplinary proceedings so that the
delinquent may not gain custody or control of papers or
take any advantage of his position. More so, at this stage,
it is not desirable that the court may find out as which
version is true when there are claims and counter claims
on factual issues. The court cannot act as if it an appellate
forum de hors the powers of judicial review."
[emphasis supplied]
[17] Considering the outbreak of Covid pandemic and the specific fact
that the JNIMS was leading the fight by having over 100 beds, this Court is of
the firm view that the order of suspension and its extension, though a little
beyond limitation, do not warrant any interference. That apart, the fact that the
Presenting Officer and the Inquiring Officer have been appointed is also not
disputed. The respondent authorities may ensure that the disciplinary
WP(c)No.53 of 2022 with WP(c)No.947 of 2021 Page 20
proceedings are concluded expeditiously, preferably within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions are dismissed. There will be
no order as to costs.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
John Kom
WP(c)No.53 of 2022 with WP(c)No.947 of 2021 Page 21
