Manipur High Court
Pravat Kumar Nayak vs Union Of India & 5 Ors on 23 May, 2024
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Item No. 14-15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 701 of 2023 with
MC(WP(C) No. 298 of 2023
Pravat Kumar Nayak
.....Petitioner/s
- Versus -
Union of India & 5 Ors.
.... Respondent/s
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
Order
23.05.2024
[1] Heard Mr. M. Devananda, learned senior counsel
assisted by Ms. N. Jyotsana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
BR. Sharma, learned CGC for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 along with Mr.
Binod Sawan, 2-i-c (Legal) CRPF and Mr. Amarjit Naorem, learned
counsel for the UPSC.
[2] The petitioner is DIG (IRLA No. 3137). Vide
memorandum dated 06.09.2022 issued by the DIG (CR & VIG), an
enquiry was initiated under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and he
was given 15 days time to reply. The memorandum is with respect to
various unauthorized transactions made by the petitioner from some of
his subordinates.
WP(C) No. 701 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 298 of 2023 Page 1
[3] Vide order dated 02.08.2023 passed by the DIG (CR &
VIG) DTE, the petitioner was found guilty.
[4] Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner submitted a
representation before the Director General, CRPF and without
considering the same, the impugned order of withholding the increment
of pay for a period of 3 years without cumulative effect was passed.
[5] The petitioner challenged the order of withholding of 3
increments by way of the present writ petition mainly on the ground that
the complaint is anonymous and should have been rejected as the
prescribed procedure was not followed and the petitioner was not
provided with supporting documents upon which the memorandum of
charge was framed including the reports of the documents relied in the
preliminary enquiry.
[6] On the other hand, Mr. BR. Sharma, learned CGS,
submits that the enquiry is initiated upon a sourced information from
the internal vigilance cell of the CRPF and in the memorandum, all the
details of the transaction have been explained and the documents are
in the possession of the petitioner i.e. details of his bank transaction.
By supplying or non-supplying of the documents, the nature of the
memorandum and the enquiry will not be affected.
[7] Mr. Amarjit Naorem, learned counsel for the UPSC,
submits that the relief prayed for by the petitioner has nothing to do
and this Court may pass appropriate order as the petitioner has
challenged the procedure adopted in the enquiry.
WP(C) No. 701 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 298 of 2023 Page 2
[8] Mr. M. Devananda, learned senior counsel, has relied
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Chandrama Tewari vs. Union of India reported as (1987) SCC Supl.
518 wherein it was held that copies of the relevant material including
the statement of witness recorded in the preliminary enquiry or during
investigation and other documents relied in the enquiry are to be
furnished to the charged employee.
[9] During the pendency of the present writ petition, a fresh
advise has been rendered by the UPSC to the CRPF authority and
accordingly, vide order dated 12.03.2024, the penalty under the
impugned order is cancelled and it is in the process of passing
appropriate order of penalty as per fresh advise of the UPSC.
[10] In the present case, it is an admitted fact that only
memorandum of charge without supporting documents including the
preliminary enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner and as on
date, there is no penalty except for the finding of guilt for minor charge.
[11] In view of the allegation of violation of statutory rules and
principle of natural justice of non-furnishing of the relevant documents,
the proceedings initiated as per the memorandum dated 06.09.2022 is
set aside only on this point and without passing any opinion on the
merit of the case. However, liberty is granted to the CRPF authority to
initiate fresh enquiry on the allegations made in the memorandum of
charge, if so advised.
[12] Writ petition is disposed of.
WP(C) No. 701 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 298 of 2023 Page 3
[13] Furnish a copy of this order to the learned counsel
appearing for all the parties.
JUDGE
Kh. Joshua Maring
KH. Digitally signed by
KH. JOSHUA
JOSHUA MARING
Date: 2024.05.24
MARING 15:21:37 +05'30'
WP(C) No. 701 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 298 of 2023 Page 4
