Manipur High Court
Ps Wangoi vs The State Of Manipur on 14 November, 2022
JOHN Digitally signed
by JOHN TELEN
TELEN KOM
Date: 2022.11.21
KOM 11:29:12 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No.251 of 2022
Dr. S. Indra Singh, aged about 61 years old S/o (Late) S.
Gourachand Singh, a resident of Haoreibi Mayai Leikai PO &
PS Wangoi, Imphal West District, Manipur-795009, at
presented Deputy Director, Vety. & A.H. Services, Manipur.
....... Petitioner
The State of Manipur, represented by the Commissioner,
(Vety.& A.H), Government of Manipur, Old Secretariat, South
Block Babupara, PO & PS Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur-795001.
.... Respondent
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioner : Mr. N. Jotendro, SR.ADV.
For the Respondents : Y. Ashang, GA
Date of Reserved : 17.10.2022
Date of Order : 14.11.2022
WP(C) No. 251 of 2022 Page 1
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(CAV)
[1] This writ petition has been filed to set aside the impugned
suspension order dated 6.4.2022 issued by the Additional Secretary (Vety.
& A.H.), Government of Manipur, as the same is done in victimization of filing
W.P.(C) No.47 of 2022 for setting aside the posting order dated 23.12.2020
and the memorandum dated 25.11.2021 rejecting the joining report dated
29.12.2020 of the petitioner.
[2] Heard learned Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Y. Ashang, the learned Government Advocate for the
respondent.
[3] Assailing the impugned order dated 6.4.2022, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suspension order was issued to
victimize the petitioner for filing various writ petitions, including W.P.(C)
No.47 of 2022 and also to give harassment to him. He would submit that
soon after issuance of the impugned order dated 6.4.2022, the petitioner has
submitted a representation dated 11.4.2022 praying to set aside the said
WP(C) No. 251 of 2022 Page 2
order, coupled with a prayer to review/modify the posting order at the office
of the District Veterinary Office, Imphal West instead of Jiribam.
[4] The learned counsel further submitted that during the pendency
of W.P.(C) No.47 of 2022 filed challenging to set aside the posting order
dated 23.12.2020 and the memorandum dated 25.11.2021 coupled with a
prayer to modify the posting order dated 23.12.2020, the impugned order
came to be passed thereby placing the petitioner under suspension under
Sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 arbitrarily. Further, the
impugned suspension orders has not been reviewed and/or modified before
the expiry of 90 days. Since the impugned order was passed pending earlier
writ petition and that the same has not been reviewed before the expiry of 90
days, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the impugned order.
[5] Per contra, the learned Government Advocate submitted that
the petitioner has submitted nearly 20 representations to different authorities
on the same issue and he can be treated as an unbecoming conduct
attracting the provisions of Rule 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
He would submit that there is no question of victimization of filing W.P.(C)
No.47 of 2022, but the petitioner was kept under suspension for his
WP(C) No. 251 of 2022 Page 3
misbehavior and that a memorandum dated 25.11.2021 was issued to him
in compliance with the order dated 29.9.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.654 of
2021.
[6] The learned Government Advocate further submitted that there
is no threat to the petitioner and that the transfer and posting of a
Government servant is a Government policy. In the instant case, before
issuing the memorandum dated 25.11.2021, the petitioner was instructed to
join to his new place of posting by issuing memorandum dated 27.3.2021
and 19.4.2021, but the petitioner deliberately disobeyed the Government
instructions to join to his place of posting. Instead of obeying the
Government order, the petitioner sought pity typical error of Government
memorandum and submitted several RTI applications, representations,
complaints bypassing his controlling officer/head of Department of his
Department to the higher authority, which is against the instructions of
DoP&T instruction.
[7] The learned Government Advocate urged that the impugned
suspension order dated 6.4.2022 is not for filing W.P.(C) No.47 of 2022
alleged by the petitioner and in fact, reasons for issuing the suspension order
WP(C) No. 251 of 2022 Page 4
has been given by the Additional Secretary (Vety. & A.H). Thus, a prayer is
made to dismiss the writ petition.
[8] Considered the rival submissions and also perused the
materials available on record.
[9] The petitioner who was working as District Veterinary Officer,
Imphal West was promoted to the post of Deputy Director, Veterinary and
Animal Husbandry Services, Manipur by an order dated 13.11.2020 and
posted at Sub-Divisional Hospital, Jiribam by an order dated 23.12.2020.
On 29.12.2020, the petitioner submitted a joining report to the Commissioner
(Vety) and the same has been received by the said authority and also
requested to review the posting order at the District Veterinary Office, Imphal
West or to give protection to protect the life of the petitioner to avoid any
untoward incidents which is likely to be occurred at Jiribam, as there is a
criminal case pending against seven officials of the Veterinary Department,
namely (1) Dr. HaobijamKunjo Singh, the then Deputy Director,
Statistics; (2) Dr. ChabungbamNandakishore Singh, the then Joint Director,
who was looking after the post of Director, V & AH; (3)
ChongthamAshokkumar Singh, VFA; (4) AsemNipamacha Singh, VFA; (5)
AsheibamKullachandra Singh, VFA; (6) ThounaojamJadumani Singh, VFA
WP(C) No. 251 of 2022 Page 5
and (7) KhuraijamSuraj Singh, VA in connection with the complaint (FIR
No.235(8)2013 under Section 330/352/506/511/34 IPC on the file of PRT
PS) made by the petitioner for the assault committed to him by the aforesaid
seven persons. According to the petitioner, he came to know through RTI
application that FIR No.235(8)2013 was closed on submission of final report
by the concerned police. Aggrieved by the closure of FIR No.235(8)2013,
the petitioner has filed Cril. Misc. Case No.44 of 2021 questioning the validity
and correctness of final report submitted by the Investigating Officer and the
same is also pending before the CJM, Imphal East.
[10] Alleging that the respondent authority failed to review and/or
modify the posting order, the petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.654 of 2021
before this Court. While disposing of the writ petition, by the order dated
29.9.2021, this Court held as under:
"[6] Anyhow, the 1st Respondent, by namely, the Commissioner
(Vety. & A.H), Government of Manipur, Old Secretariat is directed
to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.12.2020 which
was received on 30.12.2020 within a period of 4 (four) weeks from
the date of receipt of copy of this order and to pass appropriate
speaking order by giving personal opportunity to the petitioner.
WP(C) No. 251 of 2022 Page 6
[7] Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of."
[11] It appears that after passing of the order dated 29.9.2021, the
petitioner has sent a legal notice dated 6.10.2021 and upon receipt of the
said legal notice, the Under Secretary (Vety. & A.H.) issued a letter dated
12.10.2021. Pursuant to the order dated 29.9.2021 passed in W.P.(C)
No.654 of 2021, the Under Secretary has issued an order dated 25.11.2021
thereby not acceding the request/joining report of the petitioner dated
29.12.2020.
[12] It also appears that aggrieved by the transfer order dated
23.12.2020, the petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.47 of 2022 praying to set
aside the said order and to direct the Commissioner for issuing modified
posting order at District Veterinary Office, Imphal West instead of Jiribam.
Pending W.P.(C) No.47 of 2022, the impugned order came to be passed and
the impugned order reads thus:
"No.ADMV-204/1/2022-Vety-VETY&A.H: Whereas a disciplinary
proceeding against Dr. SarungbamIndra Singh, Deputy Director
(Vety.) (EIN-004356) under transfer to the Office of Sub-Divisional
Vety. Hospital, Jiribam is contemplated.
WP(C) No. 251 of 2022 Page 7
Now, therefore, the Governor of Manipur, in exercise of the powers
conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services
(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, hereby place the
said Dr. SarungbamIndra Singh, Deputy Director (Vety.) under
suspension with immediate effect.
It is further ordered that during the period that this order shall
remain in force, the Headquarter of Dr. SarungbamIndra Singh,
Dy. Director (Vety) should be Imphal and he shall not leave the
Headquarter without obtaining prior permission of the Government
of Manipur.
This is issued with the approval of the Competent Authority and
Cabinet Department."
[13] Prima facie, placing the petitioner under suspension pending
consideration of W.P.(C) No.47 of 2022 is arbitrary in nature. In fact, the
petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.47 of 2022 for quashing the posting order
dated 23.12.2020 and the memorandum dated 25.11.2021 coupled with a
prayer for direction to review/modify the posting order at the office of the
District Veterinary Office, Imphal West.
WP(C) No. 251 of 2022 Page 8
[14] When the plea of the petitioner is that there are threats to his
life in the transferred place, the authority concerned ought to have listen the
grievance of the petitioner. Admittedly, a criminal case is also pending before
the CJM, Imphal East. Therefore, the question of violation of CCS (Conduct)
Rules, 1964 canvassed by the learned Government Advocate cannot be
countenanced. The submission of several representations cannot be a
ground for rejection of the grievance of the petitioner.
[15] It is apposite to mention that the date of issuance of the
suspension order is on 6.4.2022 and the period i.e. 90 days for reviewing
the suspension order expired on 7.7.2022. In this regard, the law is well
settled that having regard to the amended provisions of sub-rule (6) and (7)
of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the review or 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. In the case on hand, nothing has been produced
by the respondent to show that the impugned suspension order has been
WP(C) No. 251 of 2022 Page 9
reviewed or modified or revoked before the expiry of 90 days. No convincing
reason is coming forth from the side of the respondent for not reviewing the
order before the expiry of 90 days.
[16] The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
approach adopted by the respondent gainst the petitioner would clearly
establish that only to victimize the petitioner for filing various writ petitions,
including W.P.(C) No.47 of 2022, the impugned suspension order came to
be passed, cannot be brushed aside. The circumstances explained by the
petitioner would prima facie show that the impugned suspension order dated
6.4.2022 appears to have been issued in order to give harassment to the
petitioner for filing number of writ petitions and finally W.P.(C) No.47 of 2022.
That apart, the impugned suspension order was issued pending W.P.(C)
No.47 of 2022. Further, mainly the 90 days period to review or modify the
impugned suspension order already expired on 7.7.2022 and therefore, on
this ground alone the impugned suspension imposed on the petitioner is
liable to be revoked.
[17] At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner is retiring in the month of November, 2022 and therefore,
WP(C) No. 251 of 2022 Page 10
his case needs to be considered sympathetically. This Court finds some
force in the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
[18] Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case
and since the impugned suspension order has not been reviewed or
modified before the expiry of 90 days and the 90 days period already expired
on 7.7.20222, this Court is of the view that the impugned suspension order
is liable to be set aside, as the same was issued in victimization of filing
number of writ petitions, including W.P.(C) No.47 of 2022 filed for quashing
the posting order dated 23.12.2020 and the memorandum dated 25.11.2021
thereby rejecting the joining report dated 29.12.2020.
[19] In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned
suspension order dated 6.4.2022 is set aside. No costs.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
John kom
WP(C) No. 251 of 2022 Page 11
