Manipur High Court
Dr. Jangala Suresh Babu vs The Manipur Lokayukta Through Its ... on 11 October, 2023
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM
SUSHIL SHARMA Page |1
SHARMA Date: 2023.10.11 17:12:17 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
Dr. Jangala Suresh Babu, IAS and ex-Chief Secretary,
Government of Manipur, aged about 62 years, S/o (L)
Jangala Prasada Rao, permanent resident of Flat No.
601 , Zeenath Residency, Srinagar Colony Main Road,
Hyderabad-500073, Telangana State.
.... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The Manipur Lokayukta through its Secretary, 3rd
Floor Directorate Complex, 2nd M.R. North AOC, P.O.
& P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District-795001.
2. The State of Manipur through the Commissioner
(Education/S), Government of Manipur, Manipur
Secretariat, South Block, P.O. & P.S. Imphal-7950011
3. The State Project Director, Samagra Shiksha,
Manipur.
...Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioners :: Mr. HS Paonam, Sr. Adv.
Mr. A. Arunkumar, Adv.
For the Respondents :: Mr. M. Rarry, Adv. for R-1
Mr. H. Debendra, Dy. AG for R-2 & R-3
Date of Hearing and
reserving Judgment & Order :: 29.08.2023
Date of Judgment & Order :: 11.10.2023
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
Page |2
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV)
Heard Mr. HS Paonam, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner; Mr. M. Rarry, the learned counsel for the first
respondent Manipur Lokayukta and Mr. H. Debendra, the
learned Deputy AG for the respondents No. 2 and 3.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for
issuance of a writ of mandamus to close the Complaint Case
No.2 of 2022 pending on the file of the first respondent/Manipur
Lokayukta registered against the petitioner as not maintainable,
as it is barred by limitation.
3. Succinctly put, the facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The petitioner, who belongs to 1986 IAS batch of
Manipur Cadre, before retirement on attaining the age of
superannuation was serving as Chief Secretary to the
Government of Manipur from 1.4.2018 to 31.7.2020. All
throughout his career, there has not been any blemish against
the petitioner and, in fact, he has taken innovative action in
various sectors for bringing about the development in the State
and with his contribution in the Education Sector, it has achieved
high degree of development and the same was recognized at
national level.
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
Page |3
3.1. The petitioner came to know that Complaint Case
No.2 of 2022 was filed by one O. Nabakishore Singh, who was
functioning as Chief Secretary to the Government of Manipur and
who was also retired from service on attaining the age of
superannuation and joined politics even contesting
Parliamentary election as well as Assembly election without any
success, against the petitioner with an allegation of irregularity in
the implementation of a project relating to Development of
Advance School Management and Integration System, which
was undertaken in 2013-2014.
3.2. When the petitioner was functioning as Principal
Secretary (Education/S), Manipur in 2014, he has come across
a serious issue pertaining to functioning of the primary schools,
upper primary schools and high schools in interior areas in the
State at desired level; even the mechanism to ascertain as to
whether student enrolment was genuine or not, whether the
teachers were attending the schools or not, whether the teaching
learning process were going on as planned or not were lacking.
Further, the information and monitoring about the proper
utilization of funds released as well as construction of civil works
were also an issue in the challenge faced by the Department.
There was also no scientific way of monitoring the quantitative
and qualitative performance of school.
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
Page |4
3.3. Under Sara Shiksha Abhiyan, State Mission
Authority, Manipur, had taken the task to district level collection
of data and monitor the school management on real time basis
and had taken up the project for Development of Advance School
Management & Integration System (ASMIS) which is an
advanced technology in data gathering from schools using
mobile technology for progress monitoring of implementation of
various interventions under Right to Education Act, etc. The
Manual of Financial Management and Procurement of SSA has
allowed limited tender for smooth and efficient functioning of the
system and allows limited tender up to the equivalent cost of US
$ 50,000 or less per contract which would had been an amount
of Rs.30 lakhs.
3.4. In view of the importance of the project, quotations
from four firms, namely (1) High Value Infotech Global Pvt. Ltd.,
Bangalore; (2) Key-Bridge Mobile Technologies & Software
Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Visakapattanam; (3) Pravasi Info
Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore; and (4) Appoids Tech
Solution Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad were obtained after ascertaining
their credentials in the field of education management. The
Purchase Committee had examined the rates quoted by the
aforesaid four firms and as per the recommendation made by the
Purchase Committee, work order for implementation of the
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
Page |5
project ASMIS was awarded to M/s.Pravasi Info Technologies
Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore for districts Bishnupur, Churachandpur,
Senapati and Tamenglong vide order dated 21.3.2013 and to
M/s.Appoids Tech Solution Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad for districts
Chandel, Imphal East, Imphal West, Thoubal and Ukhrul vide
order dated 21.12.2013.
3.5. The work order for supply of tablets for installation
of ASMIS was awarded to M/s. Appoids Tech Solution Pvt. Ltd
on 22.3.2014 and Finger Print Scanner on 10.7.2014 for the
above five districts and to M/s.Pravasi Infor Technologies Pvt.
Ltd. for the above four districts on the same dates. The work
orders for supply of another 465 tablets and 465 Finger Print
Scanner were awarded to both the firms on 27.8.2014.
3.6. According to the petitioner, the whole process of
implementation of the project and the scheme was completed in
2014 and the implementation of the scheme was also carried out
with the approval of the competent authority, including the
Chairman, General Body of SSA, who is none other than the
Hon'ble Chief Minister. After successful implementation, the
utilization certificate pertaining to the period i.e. 2013-2014 and
2014-2015 issued by the auditor of SSA was submitted to the
Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India,
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
Page |6
wherefrom no adverse comment have ever received in this
regard. The said project has been acknowledged by the general
public.
3.7. Since the expenditure involved in the project has
already been subjected to audit carried out by the Accountant
General and the said authority has not given any adverse finding
and there was also no irregularity in the financial discipline
connected with the said project, the complainant has filed the
complaint before the Manipur Lokayukta, which is time barred by
limitation, inasmuch the positive endorsement made by the State
Government to the successful implementation of the project
would construed that any kind of irregularity including financial
discipline which may entail adverse action was not existing and
thus, except for satisfying and scoring personal vendetta, there
cannot be any reason for filing the said complaint case before the
first respondent.
3.8. On 24.6.2022, the Director (Inquiry), Manipur
Lokayukta requested the State Project Director, SSA, Manipur
for making available 20 files mentioned in the said letter for
examination in connection with an enquiry arising from Complaint
Case No.2 of 2022 filed by the complainant with an allegation of
violation of the prescribed procedure of open tender pertaining to
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
Page |7
the award of work for preparation of software for school
management and monitoring of supply of tablets to Government
school to M/s. Appods Tech. Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
3.9. The procedure of taking cognizance by the first
respondent of a complaint filed by the complainant against the
petitioner belatedly beyond the statutory period and non-
consideration of the relevant provisions of the Manipur Lokayukta
Act, 2014 infringed the fundamental rights of the petitioner as
enjoined by Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence,
the present writ petition.
4. The first respondent/Manipur Lokayukta filed
affidavit-in-opposition stating that the Manipur Lokayukta under
its order dated 16.6.2022, after careful consideration of the
material available on record, at that stage, more particularly the
complaint and supporting documents directed the Director
(Inquiry), Manipur Lokayukta to conduct a preliminary inquiry so
as to find out about the facts, allegations as mentioned in the
complaint dated 14.6.2022 and to ascertain as to whether or not
there exists a prima facie case for investigation. The Manipur
Lokayukta has not passed any order for investigation in the
present case. Therefore, there is no requirement of calling
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
Page |8
explanation from the petitioner before passing the order dated
16.6.2022.
4.1. It is stated that the complaint contains two
allegations of corruption done by the petitioner while he was
functioning as Principal Secretary (Finance), Government of
Manipur and the Principal Secretary (Education), Government of
Manipur. The allegation no.1 in brief is that the petitioner, while
working as Principal Secretary, Finance Department,
Government of Manipur, had awarded the work of preparing the
software namely Finance Budget and Expenditure Regulation
Software to M/s.Appoids Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore,
which is promoted by his son Sandeep Jangala and installing the
software to the offices of Manipur Government without following
the prescribed procedure of open tender and by flouting all the
financial norms. The act of the petitioner had caused financial
loss to the State Government exchequer. The allegation no.1 is
within the period of 7 years as provided under Section 53 of the
Manipur Lokayukta Act, 2014. Hence, it is not time barred.
4.2. It is stated that allegation no.2, in brief, is that the
petitioner while working as Principal Secretary (School),
Education Department, Government of Manipur had awarded the
work of preparation of software for school management and
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
Page |9
monitoring and supply of tablets to Government Schools to the
firm M/s.Appoids Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, which is
owned by his son Sandeep Jangala without following the
prescribed procedure of open tender. The act of the petitioner
had caused wrongful financial gains to the firm owned by his son.
4.3. It is stated that regarding allegation no.2 since the
matter is at the initial stage of inquiry, the date of committing
alleged offence cannot be ascertained, but it is made clear that if
the date of committing the alleged offence is 7 years before filing
of the Complaint Case No.2 of 2022 dated 14.6.2022, the
allegation no.2 will not be entertained as barred by Section 53 of
the Manipur Lokayukta Act, 2014. The petitioner had not
mentioned anything about the allegation no.1 in the writ petition
or in other words, the petitioner had selectively mentioned only
the fact which may be favourable to his case.
4.4. It is stated that as the inquiry of the Complaint Case
No.2 of 2022 is at its initial stage, it will not be proper to conclude
that no offence of corruption is done by the petitioner, inasmuch
as the present writ petition has been filed prematurely. As the
office of the SSA, Manipur State has not furnished the
requisitioned files, the period of the alleged offence could not be
established. As such, the attraction of Sections 50 and 53 of the
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
P a g e | 10
Manipur Lokayukta Act, 2014 in respect of the allegation no.2
against the petitioner could not be ascertained at this stage, as
the inquiry of the present case is still going on. Hence, prayed
for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. The respondents 2 and 3 filed affidavit-in-opposition
stating that on receipt of the legal notice dated 18.7.2022 from
the counsel for the petitioner and the letter dated 24.6.2022 from
the Director (Inquiry), Manipur Lokayukta, the office of the State
Project Director, vide letter dated 22.8.2022, had requested the
Government to move the Law Department for advice. In this
regard, the Government, vide letter dated 9.11.2022, had
directed to formally intimate the Manipur Lokayukta in terms of
Section 53 of the Act at the earliest. In consideration of the
Government letter dated 9.11.2022, the office of the State Project
Director, vide letter dated 17.11.2022, had intimated the Director
(Inquiry), Manipur Lokayukta that in view of Section 53 of the Act,
the State Project Director is not in a position to submit the files
so requisitioned as the matter is more than 7 years old.
6. Mr. HS Paonam, the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a retired IAS officer and
before his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation, the
petitioner was serving as the Chief Secretary to the Government
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
P a g e | 11
of Manipur from 1.4.2018 to 31.7.2020. During his service career,
the petitioner had shouldered important and sensitive task in
connection with the administration and governance of State in
various capacity looking after different departments of the
Government of Manipur. Throughout his entire career, there was
no blemish against the petitioner. While so, to his shock and
dismay, he came to know that Complaint Case No.2 of 2022 has
been filed by one O. Nabakishore Singh, who was functioning as
Chief Secretary to the Government of Manipur and retired from
service on attaining the age of superannuation and thereafter
joined politics and contested the Parliamentary and Assembly
elections without any success, against the petitioner with an
allegation of irregularity in the implementation of the project
namely Development of Advance School Management and
Integration System, which was undertaken in 2013-2014.
7. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that when the petitioner was functioning as Principal
Secretary (Education/S), Government of Manipur in 2014, he has
come across serious issue pertaining to the functioning of the
Government schools in interior areas in the State at desired level.
The petitioner noticed lacking in the mechanism whether the
student enrolment was genuine, whether the teachers were
attending the schools, whether teaching learning process were
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
P a g e | 12
going on as planned. The Education Department had also faced
challenge qua the information and monitoring about the proper
utilization of fund released as well as construction of civil works
were carried out as per the estimates and the amount
sanctioned. There was also no scientific way of monitoring the
quantitative and qualitative performance of the school.
8. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that in the back drop above, the State Mission
Authority, had taken the task to district level collection of data and
monitor the school management on real time basis and had taken
up the project for development of Advance School Management
and Integration System, which is an advanced technology in data
gathering from schools using mobile technology for progress
monitoring of implementation of various interventions done under
the Right to Education Act, monitor the attendance of the
teachers of each school, monitor the attendance of the students
of each school, monitor the progress of various civil works related
to each school.
9. The learned senior counsel then submitted that in
view of the importance and urgency of the project, quotations
from four firms, namely (1) High Value Infotech Global Pvt. Ltd.,
Bangalore; (2) Key-Bridge Mobile Technologies & Software
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
P a g e | 13
Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Visakapattanam; (3) Pravasi Info
Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore; and (4) Appoids Tech
Solution Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad were obtained and scrutinized the
same. As per the decision and the recommendation of the
Purchase Committee, work order for implementation of the e-
content on mobile platform and development of ASMIS was
awarded to M/s.Pravasi Info Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore
for four districts, namely Bishnupur, Churachandpur, Senapati
and Tamenglong and to M/s.Appoids Tech Solution Pvt. Ltd.,
Hyderabad for five districts, namely Chandel, Imphal East,
Imphal West, Thoubal and Ukhrul vide orders dated 21.12.2013.
Accordingly, work orders for supply of tablets for installation of
ASMIS were awarded to the aforesaid two companies on
22.3.2014 and work orders for supply of Finger Print Scanner
were awarded on 10.7.2014 respectively. The work orders for
supply of another 465 tablets and 465 Finger Print Scanners
were awarded to both firms on 27.8.2014.
10. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the whole process of implementation of the project
and the scheme was completed in the year 2014 with the
approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, who is the Chairman of
the General Body of SSA and that the statutory auditor of SSA
had issued utilization certificate and the same was submitted to
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
P a g e | 14
the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of
India and the Ministry of Human Resource Development has not
passed any adverse remarks. In the audit conducted by the
Comptroller and Auditor General pertaining to SSA for the year
2013-14 and 2014-15, there was no issue and no adverse
comment was made regarding the implementation of the project.
That apart, the expenditure incurred in the project has already
been subjected to audit carried out by the Accountant General,
which has also given any adverse remarks.
11. According to the learned senior counsel, as there
was no irregularity in the financial discipline connected with the
implementation of the project in question, the complainant has
filed the Complaint Case No.2 of 2022 with an ill-motive and that
the Manipur Lokayukta ought not to have taken cognizance of
the said Complaint Case, as the commission of the allegation in
the Complaint Case is more than 7 years and any complaint
made after the expiry of the period of 7 years is barred by
limitation under Section 53 of the Manipur Lokayukta Act, 2014.
Further, the complaint of the complainant did not satisfy the
conditions mentioned in Section 14 of the Act for taking
cognizance by the Manipur Lokayukta. Thus, a prayer has been
made to close the Complaint Case No.2 of 2022 filed against the
petitioner pending on the file of the Manipur Lokayukta.
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
P a g e | 15
12. Per contra, Mr. M. Rarry, the learned counsel for the
first respondent/Manipur Lokayukta submitted that the Complaint
Case No.2 of 2022 contains two allegations of corruption done
by the petitioner while he was functioning as Principal Secretary
(Finance) and the Principal Secretary (Education), Government
of Manipur respectively.
13. Drawing this Court's attention to the complaint, the
learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that as far as
the allegation no.1 is concerned, the same is within the period of
7 years as provided under Section 53 of the Act. Insofar as the
allegation no.2 is concerned, since the matter is at the initial
stage of inquiry and that the date of committing the alleged
offence cannot be ascertained and if the date of committing the
alleged offence is 7 years before filing of the Complaint Case
No.2 of 2022 dated 14.6.2022, the said allegation no.2 will not be
entertained as the same is barred by Section 53 of the Manipur
Lokayukta Act, 2014.
14. The learned counsel for the first respondent urged
that the petitioner has failed to mention anything about allegation
no.1 in the writ petition and he has purposefully mentioned only
the fact which may be favourable to his case. The petitioner also
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
P a g e | 16
failed to mention the important fact that M/s.Appoids Tech
Solutions Pvt. Ltd. is promoted by the petitioner's son.
15. The learned counsel for the first respondent
submitted that since the office of SSA, Manipur has not furnished
details about the date/year of implementation of the project, the
period of implementation of the said project could not be
ascertained by the Inquiry Wing of the Manipur Lokayukta. As
the inquiry of the present Complaint Case No.2 of 2022 is at initial
stage, it will not be proper to conclude that no offence of
corruption is done by the petitioner and that the writ petition is
premature one. Thus, a prayer has been made to dismiss the
writ petition.
16. Mr. H. Debendra, the learned Government
Advocate appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 submitted that
upon receipt of the letter dated 24.6.2022 from the Director
(Inquiry), Manipur Lokayukta, the office of the State Project
Director vide letter dated 17.11.2022, intimated the Director
(Inquiry), Manipur Lokayukta that in view of Section 53 of the Act,
the State Project Director is not in a position to submit the files
as called for as the matter is more than 7 years old.
17. This Court considered the rival submissions and
also perused the materials available on record.
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
P a g e | 17
18. The grievance of the petitioner is that the complaint
of O. Nabakishore Singh, who was one of the chief functionary of
the State Government supervising the petitioner at the relevant
point of time and had all opportunity to take adverse action
against all concerned involved in the implementation of the
project/scheme while he was functioning as Chief Secretary to
the Government of Manipur, is barred by limitation under Section
53 of the Act and that the Complaint Case No.2 of 2022 is nothing
but for scoring personal vendetta against the petitioner. For an
issue which happened about 8 years ago, the complainant, who
has a demeaning attitude, should not be allowed to use the
esteemed forum of Manipur Lokayukta as an instrument and
avenue for ventilating his personal agenda, inasmuch as taking
cognizance of such nature ought to have been discouraged by
the Manipur Lokayukta.
19. On the other hand, it is the plea of the Manipur
Lokayukta that it had no knowledge of the period in which the
alleged implementation of the project of preparation of software
for school management and monitoring and supply of tablets to
Government schools under SSA was taken place as the
date/year of implementation of the project was not mentioned in
the complaint.
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
P a g e | 18
20. The petitioner sought direction to close the
Complaint Case No.2 of 2022 pending on the file of the first
respondent registered against the petitioner by contending that
since the commission of the allegation in the complaint case is
more than 7 years and the role of the petitioner in the
implementation of the project was for bringing about the
development in the education sector connected with the
monitoring of the performance of teacher in the schools amongst
others, the petitioner will stand protected by the provision of
Section 50 of the Act.
21. After the receipt of the complaint dated 14.6.2022
lodged by the complainant, the first respondent registered the
case, being Complaint Case No.2 of 2022, against the petitioner
and passed an order on 16.6.2022 directing the Director
(Inquiry), Manipur Lokayukta to conduct a preliminary inquiry.
Paragraph (5) of the order dated 16.6.2022 of the Manipur
Lokayukta reads thus:
"5. Accordingly, Director (Inquiry), Manipur
Lokayukta is directed to conduct a Preliminary
Inquiry so as to find out the fact and allegations and
assertion mentioned specially in the complaint and
supporting documents filed by the complainant and
submit a report within the period provided under
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
P a g e | 19
Section 20(1) of the Manipur Lokayukta Act, 2014
and Manipur Lokayukta Rules, 2018."
22. At this juncture, Mr. HS Paonam, the learned senior
counsel for the petitioner, drawing this Court's attention to
Section 20 of the Manipur Lokayukta Act, 2014, submitted that
any complaint received is registered as complaint number and
the proceedings under Section 20(1)(a) for preliminary enquiry
should be with reference to complaint number. The complaint
number is converted into a case number upon finding prima facie
evidence and proceeded under Section 20(1)(b). Unless and
until, there is prima facie evidence and Lokayukta is convinced
to proceed with investigation, there should not be a case
registered. However, in the case on hand, by passing the
procedure, the Manipur Lokayukta had registered the case and
assigned the number as Complaint Case No.2 of 2022.
According to the learned counsel, proceedings under Section
20(1)(a) shall be proceeded with reference to the complaint
number only and that the first respondent has registered the case
prematurely at the stage of preliminary enquiry under Section
20(1)(a) overstepping into Section 20(1)(b) by registering the
case.
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
P a g e | 20
23. Chapter VII prescribes the procedure in respect of
preliminary inquiry and investigation, the relevant part of which is
reproduced as under:
"20. (1) The Lokayukta on receipt of a complaint
if it decides to proceed further, may order
(a) preliminary inquiry against any public
servant by its inquiry or any agency to ascertain
whether there exists a prima facie case for
proceeding in the matter, or
(b) investigation by any agency where there
exists a prima facie case:
Provided that before ordering an investigation
under clause (b), the Lokayukta shall call for an
explanation of the public servant so as to
determine whether there exists a prime facie
case ' for investigation:
Provided further that the seeking of explanation
from the public servant before an investigation
Shall not interfere with the search and seizure,
if any, required to be undertaken by any '
"agency under this Act."
24. It is the plea of the first respondent that the
petitioner has misread Section 20(1)(a) and misunderstood the
difference between Section 20(1)(a) and Section 20(1)(b) of the
Manipur Lokayukta Act. In the instant case, the first respondent
under its order dated 16.6.2022, directed the Director (Inquiry) to
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
P a g e | 21
conduct a preliminary inquiry so as to find out the facts,
allegations and assertions as mentioned in the complaint dated
14.6.2022 and also to ascertain as to whether or not, there exist
a prima facie case for investigation. Accordingly, the Complaint
Case No.2 of 2022 was registered on 16.6.2022 for inquiry on
the complaint filed by O. Nabakishore Singh (IAS retired) against
the petitioner.
25. On a perusal of the order dated 16.6.2022, it is seen
that the Manipur Lokayukta has stated the concise statement of
fact in paragraph 3 of the said order, which reads as under:
"3. The concise statement of fact on which the
allegations is made is that while working as Principal
Secretary, Finance Department, Government of
Manipur, Shri Suresh Babu, IAS (retd.) awarded a
work to a firm, M/s.Appoids Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
which is registered under the Companies Act, 1956
with its registered office at No.187, Pearlwood A
Block, Ganesh Temple Road, AECS Layout,
Kundanhalli, Bangalore-560 037, without following
the prescribed procedure of open tender and thus
caused huge financial loss to the State Exchequer.
The said firm is promoted by his son, Shri Sandeep
Jangala, who is Managing Director of the firm. A
copy of the MOU signed between the State
Government and the representative of the said firm
for the work of preparing software under the title
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
P a g e | 22
"Finance Budget and Expenditure Regulation
Software" is also annexed in the complaint. Further,
it is also alleged that the State Government of
Manipur without any price discovery and rate
negotiation agreed to pay a sum of Rs.2,96,41,710/-
(Rupees two crore ninety-six lakhs forty one
thousand seven hundred and ten) only to the firm
i.e.M/s.Appoids Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Further,
the State Government paid 10% of this amount for
three years to the firm under annual Maintenance
contract without doing any work. Total loss to State
Exchequer was Rs.2,96,41,710/- + Rs.75,00,000/-
(maintenance cost). It is categorically alleged that
the said software i.e. "Finance Budget and
Expenditure Regulation Software", as of now, is not
used by the Finance Department, Government of
Manipur and it is useless. Further, Shri Suresh
Babu, IAS (Retd.) went out of the way to favour his
son's firm by flouting all financial norms and prudent
expenditure, and he is accountable for the loss
caused. It is also alleged in the complaint that while
working as Principal Secretary, School Education
Department, Government of Manipur, Shri Suresh
Babu, IAS (Retd.) awarded a work/contract to a firm,
M/s.Appoids Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. which is
registered under the Companies Act, 1956 with its
registered office at No.187, Pearlwood A Block,
Ganesh Temple Road, AECS, Layout, Kundanhallii,
Bangalore-560 037, without following the prescribed
procedure of open tender to arrive at the lowest rate,
and other firms from outside Manipur with an
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
P a g e | 23
intention to cause financial gains to the firm owned
by his son, Shri Sandeep Jangalia. The works
mentioned here concerns preparation of software for
school management and monitoring."
26. From the above concise statement of fact recorded
by the first respondent in its order, it is clear that there are two
allegations made against the petitioner in the complaint.
However, the period of offence/allegation levelled against the
petitioner has not been specifically stated in the complaint. In
this regard, the first respondent has stated in the affidavit-in-
opposition filed by him as under:
"During the inquiry of allegation No.1, it is learnt
that on 01.10.2015 the Finance Department,
Government of Manipur has issued the Letter of
Award (LOA) to Appoids Tech Solutions Pvt.
Ltd. having its registered office at Kundanhallii,
Bangalore for development of Finance
Management software as per the terms and
conditions laid down in the recommendation of
the Higher Tender committee. Thereafter, the
Memorandum of Understanding was signed on
3.10.2015 between Appoids Tech solutions Pvt.
Ltd. and the State Government of Manipur
acting through the Department of Finance for
installation of "Finance Budget and Expenditure
Regulation Software" (FIBERS) to the offices of
the State Government, its annual maintenance
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
P a g e | 24
for a period of 3 (three) years and training of
Finance Department personnel. The said firm
submitted the completion report of installation of
the FIBERS project on 02.12.2015 with a
request to release the payment dues. The State
Government has made the due payments to the
firm."
27. Regarding allegation no.1, Mr. HS Paonam, the
learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that before
implementation of FIBERS, the Finance Department was not
having any latest technology software and the Department was
in need of an integrated software for all the financial operations.
Therefore, it was decided to float open tender and with the
approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, the tender was floated on
25.7.2015. The tender was initially designed for internal
operations of the Finance Department and accordingly notified in
the newspapers on 30.7.2015. Pursuant to the tender,
M/s.Nhance Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s.Appoids
Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. have participated in the open tender and
bids were opened on 20.8.2015 by the tender opening-cum-
evaluation committee. The price quoted by M/s.Appoids Tech
Solutions Pvt. Ltd is lesser than the price quoted by M/s.Nhance
Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner being the Principal
Secretary (Finance) was the Chairman of the High Tender
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
P a g e | 25
Committee, recused himself to chair the Committee as one of the
firms participated belonged to his relative. Hence, the Higher
Tender Committee was chaired by the then Chief Secretary Shri
P.C.Lawmkhunga and in its meeting held on 21.8.2015 under the
Chairmanship of the then Chief Secretary and the said
Committee has approved the engagement of M/s.Appoids Tech
Solutions Pvt. Ltd at a price of Rs.2,27,88,000/- excluding taxes
being L1.
28. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner
submitted that thereafter a decision was taken at higher level to
enhance the scope of the software to integrate all the finance
modules with all 50 Departments of the State Government.
Since the scope of work has increased with integration of all
departments, the tender was cancelled and M/s.Appoids Tech
Solutions Pvt. Ltd was asked to submit a revised price quotation.
The said proposal was placed before the State Cabinet on
5.9.2015 and after a detailed discussion, the State Cabinet
awarded the work of FIBERS to M/s.Appoids Tech Solutions Pvt.
Ltd. The proposal was thereafter placed before the High Tender
Committee on 15.9.2015 headed by the then Chief Secretary
Shri P.C. Lawmkhunga, IAS (Retd.). The said Committee after
due consideration of the price quoted in the open tender and the
subsequent enhanced scope of the task has approved the price
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
P a g e | 26
quoted by M/s.Appoids Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd which is
Rs.2,49,09,000/- and that the proceedings of the High Tender
Committee dated 15.9.2015 were also approved by the Hon'ble
Chief Minister on 29.9.2015. The work order was issued by the
Finance Department on 1.10.2015 after the High Tender
Committee headed by the then Chief Secretary finalized the
terms and conditions.
29. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner
admitted that the said allegation is within 7 years period and is
not barred by limitation. However, the learned senior counsel for
the petitioner argued that the complainant and the first
respondent are aware that the relative price was derived in open
tender and it is the State Cabinet which approved the software
and the firm, but the said parties are unnecessarily and
intentionally trying to mislead this Court by not bringing the real
facts to the notice of this Court.
30. In the rejoinder to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by
the first respondent, the petitioner has stated as under:
"s) The answering deponent agrees that it is
within 7 years period and is not barred by
limitation. ......"
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
P a g e | 27
31. Since the petitioner himself fairly admitted that the
allegation no.1 is within the period of 7 years and is not barred
by limitation, this Court is not inclined to deal with the said aspect
any further. That apart, the allegation no.1 is not the subject
matter in the present writ petition.
32. The present writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner to close the complaint Case No.2 of 2022 pending on
the file of the first respondent as the same is barred by limitation.
33. The allegation against the petitioner is while he was
working as Principal Secretary (School), Education Department,
Government of Manipur, had awarded the work of preparation of
software for school management and monitoring and supply of
tablets to Government schools to M/s.Appoids Tech Solutions
Pvt. Ltd., which is owned by the petitioner's son and the act of
the petitioner had caused wrongful financial gains to the firm
owned by his son.
34. According to the petitioner, for the project for
development ASMIS, the Purchase Committee of the SSA,
Manipur, had examined the rate quoted by M/s.Appoids Tech
Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and as per the recommendation of the
Purchase Committee, the work order for implementation of the
ASMIS was awarded to M/s.Pravasi Info Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
P a g e | 28
Bangalore for Bishnupur, Churachandpur, Senapati and
Tamenglong district and to M/s.Appoids Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,
Hyderabad for Chandel, Imphal East, Imphal West, Thoubal and
Ukhrul districts on 21.12.2013. Further, the work order for supply
of tablets for installation of ASMIS was awarded to M/s.Appoids
Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. on 22.3.2014 and the Finger Print
Scanner on 10.4.2014. According to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the whole process of implementation of the project
was completed in 2014. It would be sufficient enough to state
that the first respondent ought not to have taken cognizance of
the Complaint Case since the commission of the alleged offence
stated in the Complaint Case is more than 7 years and under
Section 53 of the Manipur Lokayukta Act, 2014, limitation
provided is 7 years.
35. Mr. M. Rarry, the learned counsel for the first
respondent submitted that during the course of inquiry, a letter
dated 24.6.2022 was addressed to the State Project Director
SSA requesting 20 files related to the implementation of the
project of preparation of software for school management and
monitoring and supply of tablets to Government schools under
SSA from the office of the SSA, Manipur. However, the office of
the SSA, Manipur has not furnished the details till date.
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
P a g e | 29
Therefore, the period of implementation of the said project could
not be ascertained by the Inquiry Wing of the Manipur Lokayukta.
36. Admittedly, in the complaint dated 14.6.2022 and
the order dated 16.6.2022 passed by the Manipur Lokayukta, the
period of commission of the allegation/offence has not been
specifically indicated. On the other hand, by producing the
utilization certificate issued by the auditor of SSA for the period
2013-2014 and 2014-2015, the learned counsel submitted that
there has not been any issue of infraction of rules, regulation and
financial discipline in the implementation of the project.
According to the learned counsel, in the audit conducted by the
Comptroller and Auditor General pertaining to SSA for the year
2013-2014 and 2014-2015, there was no adverse comment
regarding the implementation of the project/scheme. The
petitioner contended that the expenditure involved in the project
has already been subjected to audit carried out by the
Accountant General.
37. It is pertinent to note that the first respondent in its
affidavit-in-opposition stated as under:
"9. In reply to the contents of Para No.18 of the Writ
Petition, it is submitted that the answering
Respondent has no knowledge of the period in which
the alleged offence of the projects of preparation of
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
P a g e | 30
software for school management and monitoring
and supply of tablets to Government schools under
SSA was taken place in respect of the Allegation
no.2 as the date/year of implementation of the
projects was not mentioned in the complaint. ......"
38. From the above averments of the first respondent,
it is clear that in his complaint, the complainant has not
mentioned the date/year of the implementation of the project and
in the absence of specific details of the work order in the
complaint, the Manipur Lokayukta could not have entertained the
allegation.
39. As per Rule 15(3) of the Manipur Lokayukta Rules,
2018, every complaint made under sub-rule (1) shall contain a
statement in a concise form of the facts on which that allegation
is based. It shall also indicate as far as possible, the evidence
by which the complainant proposes to prove each allegation.
40. While narrating the concise statement in the order
dated 16.6.2022, the Manipur Lokayukta stated that "it is also
alleged in the complaint that while working as Principal
Secretary, School Education Department, Government of
Manipur, Shri Suresh Babu, IAS (Retd.) awarded a work/contract
to a firm, M/s.Appoids Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. .... Without
following the prescribed procedure of open tender to arrive at the
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
P a g e | 31
lowest rate, and other firms from outside Manipur with an
intention to cause financial gains to the firm owned by his son,
Shri Sandeep Jangalia". In paragraph 4 of the order dated
16.6.2022, the Manipur Lokayukta stated as under:
"4. ..... On careful consideration of the material
available on record, at this stage, more
particularly the complainant and supporting
documents, we are of the considered view that
a prima facie case for directing the Director
(Inquiry), Manipur Lokayukta, to conduct a
preliminary inquiry so as to find out as to
whether a prima facie has been make out for
inquiry and/or further proceeding, is made out."
41. Admittedly, such a finding arrived at by the Manipur
Lokayukta is not legally sustainable for the reason that the
complaint does not contain the date/year of the implementation
of project. That apart, the Manipur Lokayukta could not initiate a
roving inquiry based on vague allegations without any material
support. It is the duty of the complainant to provide correct
details and the same cannot be left to the Lokayukta to gather
from the Department concerned.
42. When the Manipur Lokayukta admitted that it is not
aware of the period of the alleged implementation of the project,
it would be appropriate to call for information relating to the date
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
P a g e | 32
of work order and date of completion of the project instead of
calling for 20 files and doing preliminary inquiry. The reasonable
way of ascertaining the time schedule is getting a copy of the
completion report on the timeline from SSA instead of calling so
many files to proceed on preliminary inquiry. Admittedly, the
preliminary inquiry is required to ascertain whether any prima
facie evidence is there, in the event the Manipur Lokayukta
having jurisdiction. More importantly, the aforesaid is applicable
in case the complaint is not barred by limitation.
43. In the case on hand, the petitioner has established
prima facie that the work order for implementation of the e-
content on mobile platform and development of ASMIS was
awarded to the firm on 21.12.2013 and work order for supply of
tablets for installation of ASMIS was awarded on 22.3.2014,
coupled with the fact that the work order for supply of Finger Print
Scanner was awarded on 10.7.2014. Thus, it is clear that the
whole process for implementation of the project was completed
in the year 2014, that too with the approval of the Chairman of
the General Body of SSA.
44. Since the project in question was completed in the
year 2014, filing a complaint, that too without mentioning the
date/year of the implementation of the project levelling allegation
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
P a g e | 33
that the petitioner with an intention to cause financial gains to the
firm owned by his son and without following the prescribed
procedure of open tender had awarded contract to M/s.Appoids
Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. is not sustainable and the same is barred
by limitation under Section 53 of the Manipur Lokayukta Act,
2014.
45. Section 53 of the Manipur Lokayukta Act, 2014
provides:
"53. The Lokayukta shall not inquire or investigate
into any complaint, if the complaint is made after
the expiry of a period of seven years from the date
on which the offence mentioned in such complaint
is alleged to have been committed."
46. The following averments contained in the affidavit-
in-opposition filed by the first respondent to the writ petition
strengthen that without knowing/mentioning the date of
commission of the alleged offence, the Manipur Lokayukta
ordered preliminary inquiry:
"Regarding Allegation No.2, since the matter is
at the initial stage of inquiry, the date of
committing alleged offence cannot be
ascertained but it is made clear that if the date
of committing the alleged offence is seven years
before filing of the Complaint Case No.2 of 2022
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
P a g e | 34
dated 14.6.2022, the said Allegation No.2 will
not be entertained as barred by Section 53 of
the Manipur Lokayukta Act, 2014. ..."
47. At this juncture, Mr. M. Rarry, the learned counsel
for the first respondent, by placing on record the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex court in the case of D.L.F. Housing Construction
(P) Ltd. v. Delhi Municipal Corpn. and others, (1976) 3 SCC 160,
submitted that highly disputed question of fact cannot be decided
in a writ petition.
48. As stated supra, first of all, the complaint does not
contain the date of the alleged offence. Based on such complaint,
the Manipur Lokayukta issued a direction to the Director (Inquiry)
to conduct a preliminary inquiry. Admittedly, the Manipur
Lokayukta ought not to have ordered inquiry, as the period of
implementation of the project was completed in 2014 itself. Since
the basic factum of date of alleged offence has not been
specifically stated in the complaint and prima facie it proves that
the project in question was completed in the year 2014 itself, the
petitioner has every right to maintain the present writ petition.
49. Section 14 of the Manipur Lokayukta Act, 2014
deals with the inquiry to be conducted into any matter involved in
or arising from or connected with any allegation of corruption
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
P a g e | 35
made in the complaint by the Lokayukta. Section 14(1) of the Act
provides:
"14. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this
Act, the Lokayukta shall inquire or cause an
inquiry to be conducted into any matter involved
in, or arising from, or connected with, any
allegation of corruption made in a complaint in
respect of the following namely:-
(a) ...
(b) ...
(c) ...
(d) all officers and employees of the State,
from amongst the public servants defined
in sub-clause (i) and (ii) of clause (c) of
section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 when serving or who has
served, in connection with the affairs of
the State;
(e) all officers and employees referred to in
clause (d) or equivalent in any body or
Board or corporation or authority or
company or society or trust or
autonomous body (by whatever name
called) established by an Act of the State
Legislature or wholly or partly financed
by the State Government or controlled by
it;
(f) ...
(g) ...
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
P a g e | 36
(h) ..."50. Thus, from the above, it is clear
that a complaint before the Manipur
Lokayukta by the complainant against
any authority, including the public office
needs to satisfy the condition mentioned
in Section 14(1) of the Manipur
Lokayukta Act, 2014. In the case on
hand, as stated supra, the condition
stipulated in Section 14(1) of the Act has
not been fulfilled by the complainant and
the said fact was not properly analysed
by the Manipur Lokayukta while ordering
preliminary inquiry.
51. The argument of the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner is that when the petitioner was functioning as Principal
Secretary (Education), Government of Manipur in the year 2014,
he has come across serious issue qua functioning of the primary
schools, upper primary schools and high schools in the interior
areas in the State. That apart, even the mechanism to ascertain
as to whether student enrolment was genuine or not; whether the
teachers were attending the schools or not; whether the teaching
learning process were going on as planned or not are lacking. In
order to develop proper monitoring system of all the Government
schools, the Sara Shiksha Abhiyan, State Mission Authority,
Manipur, had taken the task to district level collection of the data
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
P a g e | 37
and monitor the school management on real time basis and had
taken up the project for development of ASMIS which is an
advanced technology in data gathering from schools using
mobile technology. Thus, with a good intention, the petitioner,
being the Principal Secretary of the Education Department at the
relevant point of time, discharged his official function and,
therefore, the petitioner has to be protected by the provision of
Section 50 of the Act.
52. Section 50 of the Manipur Lokayukta Act, 2014
provides:
"50. No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings
under this Act shall lie against any public servant, in
respect of anything which is done in good faith or
intended to be done in the discharge of his official
functions or in exercise of his powers."
53. Admittedly, the role of the petitioner in the
implementation of the project, as stated supra, is for bringing
about development in the education sector connected with
monitoring the performance of teacher in the school amongst
others. As rightly argued by the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner, such a bona fide action in discharge of duty in public
interest undertaken by the petitioner cannot be faulted and, in
fact, the petitioner has done such development work in good faith
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
P a g e | 38
in the discharge of his official function. Merely because
M/s.Appoids Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. is promoted by the
petitioner's son, it cannot be contended that without following the
prescribed procedure, the petitioner has awarded the work
contract to M/s.Appoids Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. More so, as
stated supra, the alleged offence qua the implementation of e-
content on mobile platform and development of ASMIS was more
than seven years prior to the complaint dated 14.6.2022.
Therefore, the complainant has no legal right to question the
project which was completed in the year 2014.
54. At this juncture, by placing on record the decision of
a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Office of
Lokayukta v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and another, ILR (2009) VI
Delhi 83, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted
that the Lokayukta is empowered under the Act to conduct
preliminary inquiry to prima facie find whether the allegation in
complaint justified for conducting regular investigation. For
conducting preliminary inquiry, notice is not necessary to be
issued to public servant but to be issued on conducting a regular
investigation into complaint. For conducting preliminary inquiry,
the Lokayukta has power to call for records from anybody.
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
P a g e | 39
55. The object of conducting the preliminary inquiry or
investigation is to get prima facie evidence so that the needed
evidence or material may not be suppressed or destroyed.
However, in the instant case, when it is apparent that the
complaint itself is time barred, any preliminary inquiry or
investigation through the Director (Inquiry) is a futile exercise and
the same is not permitted under law.
56. It is apposite to mention that the complainant who
worked as Chief Secretary of Manipur State from 1.10.2015 to
5.7.2017 had plenty of time at his disposal to initiate
departmental proceedings, if any against the petitioner, if really
the petitioner has committed the alleged offence -
implementation of project relating to development of ASMIS, as
the complainant was having access to all files and has full powers
to proceed against the petitioner. However, the complainant has
failed to do so. The complainant having fully known that his
complaint itself is time barred by limitation, inasmuch as positive
endorsement has been made by the State Government to the
successful implementation of the project, knocked the doors of
the Manipur Lokayukta and the said authority without even
noticing that the complainant has failed to disclose the date of
commission of the offence has entertained the complaint and
ordered preliminary inquiry. Such an approach adopted by the
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
P a g e | 40
Manipur Lokayukta in respect of the project relating to
development of ASMIS is not appreciable. Any such preliminary
inquiry by the Director (Inquiry), Manipur Lokayukta qua the
project in question need not be done as the complaint in respect
of the project is time barred. That apart, there was no adverse
comment regarding the implementation of the project by the
Comptroller and Audit General during audit pertaining to the SSA
for the period 2013-2014 and 2014-15.
57. As the complaint in question in respect of awarding
of work of preparation of software for school management and
monitoring and supply of tablets to Government schools to
M/s.Appoids Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. is time barred under
Section 53 of the Manipur Lokayukta Act, 2014, the Director
(Inquiry) ought not to have requested the State Project Director,
SSA, Manipur to make available 20 files mentioned in the letter
dated 24.6.2022 for examination in connection with the inquiry
arising from the Complaint Case No.2 of 2022. In this regard, the
affidavit of the respondents 2 and 3 is to the effect that the office
of the State Project Director, vide letter dated 17.11.2022,
intimated the Director (Inquiry), Manipur Lokayukta that in view
of Section 53 of the Manipur Lokayukta Act, 2014, the State
Project Director is not in a position to submit the files so
requisitioned as the matter is more than 7 years old. Thus, the
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
P a g e | 41
State Government is of the firm view that the complaint of the
complainant in respect of the work of preparation of software for
school management and monitoring and supply of tablets is time
barred.
58. As rightly argued by the learned senior counsel for
the petitioner, taking cognizance by the Manipur Lokayukta of a
complaint filed by the complainant, who was a retired Chief
Secretary to the Government of Manipur against the petitioner
beyond the statutory period as provided under Section 53 of the
Manipur Lokayukta Act, 2014 and the non-consideration of the
aspect of Section 50 of the Manipur Lokayukta Act, 2014 has
infringed upon the fundamental rights of the petitioner by Article
14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
59. A retired high functionary of the State Government
cannot be accused by another retired high functionary to meet
personal agenda after a long time before the Lokayukta, that too,
when the complainant was the superior authority i.e. the Chief
Secretary of the State of Manipur during the relevant period.
60. For all the reasons stated above, this Court is of the
considered view that complaint dated 14.6.2022 lodged by the
complainant before the Manipur Lokayukta qua the allegation of
awarding the work of preparation of software for school
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
P a g e | 42
management and monitoring and supply of tablets to
Government schools to M/s.Appoids Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,
Bangalore is barred by limitation and, without even considering
the said aspect, the Manipur Lokayukta had issued direction to
the Director (Inquiry) to conduct a preliminary inquiry. Since the
complaint qua the project in question is barred by limitation under
Section 53 of the Manipur Lokayukta Act, 2014, consequently the
Complaint Case No.2 of 2022 registered against the petitioner
pending on the file of the Manipur Lokayukta in respect of
awarding the work of preparation of software for school
management and monitoring and supply of tablets to
Government schools to the firm M/s.Appoids Tech Solutions Pvt.
Ltd., Bangalore is to be closed.
61. In the result,
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The Complaint Case No.2 of 2022
pending on the file of the Manipur
Lokayukta against the petitioner in
respect of awarding the work of
preparation of software for school
management and monitoring and
supply of tablets to Government schools
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
P a g e | 43
to M/s.Appoids Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,
Bangalore is ordered to be closed, as
the same is barred by limitation under
Section 53 of the Manipur Lokayukta
Act, 2014.
(iii) There will be no order as to costs.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR
Sushil
WP(C) No. 565 of 2022
