Wangjam Birbal Singh vs State Of Manipur & 3 Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 452 Mani

Manipur High Court

Wangjam Birbal Singh vs State Of Manipur & 3 Ors on 24 October, 2024

Author: A.Guneshwar Sharma

Bench: A.Guneshwar Sharma

                                                               79
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                      AT IMPHAL

WP(C) No.172 of 2022


Wangjam Birbal Singh                      ... Petitioner

                             -Versus-
State of Manipur & 3 Ors                  ... Respondents

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.GUNESHWAR SHARMA 24.10.2024 Heard Mr.Kh.Tarunkumar, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms.Maria, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Shyam Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the State and Mr.S.Suresh, learned counsel for the Principal Accountant General, Manipur.

The petitioner who was working as ASI in the Manipur Police, was kept under suspension from service w.e.f. 13.9.2020 and dismissed from service vide order dated 17.2.2001. As directed by this Court in the judgment dated 6.12.2013 in Writ Appeal No.84 2015, State respondents conducted de-novo inquiry against the petitioner. In the de novo inquiry, service of the petitioner was reinstated vide order dated 24.6.2014 by imposing two stoppage of two increments without affecting future increment.

It was also observed in the reinstatement order dated 24.6.2014 that period of suspension and dismissal period w.e.f. 13.6.2000 to 25.6.2014 was to be treated as on duty for all purposes. Thereafter, petitioner submitted representation dated 16.9.20214 to the Director General of Police, Manipur, for considering him for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector. However, the same was rejected as the petitioner did not appear personally in the pre promotion selection test. Order dated 13.11.2020 is challenged before this Court. The petitioner retired from service on 17.2.2017 on attaining the age of superannuation.

During the course of hearing Mr.Kh.Tarunkumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, on instruction, submitted that the petitioner is not pursuing the prayer for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector and will confine his relief with respect to the grant of ACP-I. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks' time for producing the copy of ACP Rules. Mr.Shyam Sharma, learned Government Advocate and Mr.S.Suresh, learned counsel for the Principal Accountant General, have no objection.

ACR and relevant service Rules may be filed before the next date by giving advance copy to the other party.

List this case on 26.11.2024 as part heard.

JUDGE

Priyojit

RAJKUMAR Digitally RAJKUMAR signed by

PRIYOJIT PRIYOJIT SINGH Date: 2024.10.25 SINGH 14:35:07 +05'30'