[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Manipur High Court
Sarangthem Kishan Singh vs N on 10 December, 2025
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Digitally
KABOR signed by
AMBAM KABORAMBA
M SAPANA
SAPAN CHANU Item Nos. 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Date:
A 2025.12.15
CHANU 16:54:06
AT IMPHAL
+05'30'
WP(C) No. 990 of 2021
Sarangthem Kishan Singh
...Petitioner
Vrs.
State of Manipur; & 9 Ors.
...Respondents
-B E F O R E-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
10.12.2025
[1] Heard Mr. L. Shashibhushan, learned senior counsel
assisted by Md. Fakhruddin, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Mrs. L. Monomala, learned GA appearing for the
respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. Satish, learned counsel appearing
for the respondents No. 4 & 6-10.
None appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 5.
The present writ petition has been filed assailing the
order dated 22.01.2021 issued by the Commissioner (Hr. & Tech.
Edn.), Government of Manipur keeping in abeyance the appointment
order in respect of the present petitioner and order dated 16.11.2021
Page 1
issued by the Commissioner (Hr. & Tech. Edn.), Government of
Manipur terminating the service of the petitioner as Lab. Assistant in
Kakching Khunou College.
[2] The brief facts of the present case in a nutshell are that
the Secretary, Governing Body of Kakching Khunou College issued a
notification dated 10.10.2016 inviting applications from eligible
candidates for recruitment against 6 (six) posts including 4 (four)
posts of Lab. Assistant in the Kakching Khunou College. Pursuant to
the said notification, the petitioner applied for the post of Lab.
Assistant.
Subsequently, on being selected, the petitioner was
appointed as Lab. Asst. (Zoology) by an order dated 01.12.2016
issued by the Chairman, Governing Body, Kakching Khunou College
along with 5 (five) other persons and the petitioner joint service
w.e.f. 02.12.2016.
[3] By a letter dated 13.12.2016, the Office of the Director
of Univ. & Higher Education requested the Secretary/Principal,
Kakching Khunou College to furnish the information/particulars of
the employees of the College on or before 17.12.2016. Pursuant to
Page 2
the said request made by the office of the Director of Univ. & Higher
Education, the Principal, Kakching Khunou College submitted the
particulars of the employees of Kakching Khunou College (both
approved and unapproved) under cover of a letter dated 17.12.2016.
The name of the petitioner appeared at serial No. 21 of the list of
the non-teaching staffs of the said college and his date of
appointment is shown as 01.12.2016.
[4] Subsequently, by an order dated 28.06.2018 issued by
the Secretariat: Higher & Technical Education Department,
Government of Manipur, 6 (six) Colleges including Kakching Khunou
College was taken over by the Government and converted into full-
fledged Government Colleges.
Pursuant to the taking over of the Kakching Khunou
College as a full-fledged Government College, the Secretariat: Higher
& Technical Education Department, Government of Manipur issued
an order dated 19.03.2020 appointing all the teaching and non-
teaching staffs of the 6 (six) taken over Colleges, including the
petitioner, into Government service w.e.f. 22.02.2019. The name of
the petitioner appeared at serial No. 1 of the non-teaching staffs of
Page 3
Kakching Khunou College which was enclosed in the said order dated
19.03.2020.
[5] Later on, by an order dated 22.01.2021 issued by the
Commissioner (Hr. & Tech. Edn.), Government of Manipur, the order
dated 16.03.2020 (sic. 19.03.2020) appointing the petitioner in
Government service as Lab. Assistant in Kakching Khunou College
was kept in abeyance till the submission of the final report by the
Director (UHE), Manipur and subsequent decision by the
Government.
Thereafter, by an order dated 16.11.2021 issued by the
Commissioner (Hr. & Tech. Edn.), Government of Manipur, the
service of the petitioner was terminated, hence, the present writ
petition.
[6] Mr. L. Shashibhushan, learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioner assailed the impugned orders dated 22.01.2021
and 16.11.2021 only on the ground that the said impugned orders
have been issued in violation of the provisions of article 311 (2) of
the constitution of India. Elaborating this point the learned senior
counsel submitted that the petitioner was appointed into
Page 4
Government service by an order dated 19.03.2020 issued by the
Commissioner (Hr. & Tech. Edn.), Government of Manipur. It has
also been submitted that even though, the petitioner is a member of
Civil service of the Government of Manipur, the authorities
removed/terminated the petitioner from service without holding an
enquiry and without informing him of the charges made against him
and also without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
According to the learned senior counsel, the impugned termination
orders have been issued by the authorities in complete violation of
the constitutional provisions as provided under article 311 (2) of the
constitution of India. It has been strenuously submitted by the
learned senior counsel that on this ground alone, the impugned
orders deserve to be quashed and set aside.
[7] In support of his submissions, the learned senior counsel
cited the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of "Government of Andhra Pradesh and Another Versus N.
Ramanaiah" reported in (2009) 7 SCC 165 wherein at Paragraph
No. 13 & 14 of the judgment it has been held as under:-
"13. The elaborate provisions in Part XIV relating to services under
the Union and the States indicate the importance which the
Page 5
framers of our Constitution attached to the civil service. The trinity
of Articles 309, 310 and 311 deal with the services regulating
recruitment, and conditions of service of persons appointed to
public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union
or any of the State.
"14. Every person who is a member of civil service of a State or
holds any civil post under a State holds office during the pleasure
of the Governor. Article 311(2) qualifies the pleasure of the
President or the Governor, and the pleasure cannot be exercised
if a government servant's service is to be terminated as a
punishment for misconduct. In such a case, Article 311(2)
mandates that a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect
of the charges must be given to the government servant. Any
order inflicting the punishment of dismissal, removal without
giving the opportunities as is required by Article 311(2) would be
null and void as violative of an express constitutional requirement."
[8] Mrs. L. Monomala, learned GA appearing for the State
respondents submitted that the appointment of the petitioner is
clouded with doubt since his initial appointment order was issued on
2 different dates, one issued by the Chairman on 01.12.2016 and
another issued by the Secretary on 21.11.2017 of erstwhile
Governing Body of the College. It has also been submitted that the
authorities asked the principal of the College to furnish
information/documents for re-verification in respect of the
appointment order of the petitioner, however, the principal could not
furnished any valid or legitimate document to rely on the
appointment of the petitioner.
Page 6
[9] It has also been submitted by the learned GA that a
single employee cannot have two appointment orders issued on two
different dates by two different designated persons of the erstwhile
Governing Body of the College and that the Government is perplex
to which appointment order it has to be acted upon.
It has also been submitted that as the Director of
University and Higher Education, Manipur was not able to verify
which of the two appointment orders is genuine, in the absence of
any DPC proceedings, resolution of the Governing Body as well as
the attendance registrar and Acquaintance records for verification,
the Governor of Manipur was constrained to order the termination of
the service of the petitioner by issuing the impugned orders to meet
the ends of justice and after minute examination.
It has further been submitted that the said impugned
termination order was issued by following the rule of law and that
there is no erroneous or malafide intention on the part of the
Government. The learned GA accordingly submitted the present writ
petition deserves to be dismissed as devoid of merit.
Page 7
[10] I have heard the rival submission advanced by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and also
examined all the materials available on record.
The service of the petitioner was terminated on the
following grounds:-
a) There are two different orders appointing the
petitioner initially as Laboratory Assistant, (i) order
date 01.12.2016 issued by the Chairman of the
Governing Body, Kakching Khunou College
appointing the petitioner as Laboratory Assistant
(Zoology) along with 5 (five) other persons, (ii) order
dated 21.11.2017 issued by the Secretary of the
Governing Body, Kakching Khunou College
appointing the petitioner as Laboratory Assistant
along with 2 (two) other persons.
b) The Directorate of University and Higher Education
was not able to verify which of the 2 (two)
appointment orders is genuine and which one is not
genuine as no records such as DPC proceedings,
Page 8
resolution book of the Governing Body etc.,
necessary for verification are not available either in
the Directorate or the College.
c) The Administrative Department came to the
conclusion that there is no genuine appointment
order in respect of the petitioner, accordingly, the
authorities come to the conclusion that the service
of the petitioner is liable to be terminated.
[11] With regard to the first ground, it is to be pointed out
that under the said appointment order dated 01.12.2016, the
petitioner was appointed along with other 5 (five) persons and that
acting on the basis of the said appointment order the authorities
appointed all the 6 (six) persons, including the petitioner, into
Government service and that all the other 5 (five) persons are still
continuing in Government service. Accordingly, the act of the
authorities in declaring the said appointment order dated 01.12.2016
as not genuine in respect of only the petitioner is unreasonable and
arbitrary and as such, this Court cannot countenance with such
decision arrived at by the authorities.
Page 9
[12] With regard to the ground No. 2, it is to be noted that in
Para 11 of the writ petition, the writ petitioner took a specific plea
that subsequent to the conversion of Kakching Khunou College as a
full-fledged Government College, vide order dated 28.06.2018 issued
by the Secretariat: Higher & Technical Education Department, and
as directed by the Director of University and Higher Education
(respondent No. 2), the then principal of Kakching Khunou College
handed over the Governing Body Resolution Book, Acquittance Roll
(both approved and unapproved staff) and Daily Attendance Register
to Shri Th. Roben Singh, OSD (Sc) and Shri M. Guni Singh, LDC of
the office of the Director of University and Higher Education and that
the said handing over and taking over was witness by Smt. M. Sarda
Devi, the then principal of the College and M. Santa Singh, a staff of
the College and the said officials appended their signatures in the
acknowledgment receipt in token of receipt of the aforesaid
document on 12.09.2018, the petitioner also enclosed the said
document as Annexure-A/9 to the writ petition. However, the said
statement is not disputed by the respondents No. 1 & 2 and as such,
this Court is of the considered view that the said statement made by
Page 10
the petitioner shall be taken as true. Therefore, this Court cannot
accept the reason given by the authorities that no such records are
available for verification of the appointment order of the petitioner.
[13] With regard to the ground No. 3, it is to be noted that
the then Secretary of the Governing Body of Kakching Khunou
College (Respondent No. 5 herein) made a categorical statement at
paragraph 4 of his affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner was
already appointed by the Governing Body, Kakching Khunou College
on 01.12.2016 and that his name has been wrongly included in the
subsequent order dated 21.11.2017 due to inadvertent mistake. It
has also been stated that the appointment order dated 21.11.2017
was erroneous with regard to the inclusion of the name of the
petitioner as his actual date of appointment is 01.12.2016. It is to be
pointed out that none of the authorities disputed or denied such
statement made by the respondent No. 5. Moreover, without finding
out the genuineness of the statements made by the petitioner as
well as the respondent No. 5 and also the genuineness about the
initial appointment order of the petitioner dated 01.12.2016, the
authorities declared that there is no genuine appointment order in
Page 11
respect of the petitioner. This Court cannot bring itself to agree with
such act of the respondents and accordingly this Court is of the
considered view that such act of the respondents is unreasonable
and arbitrary.
[14] In the present case, the petitioner challenged the
impugned orders on the ground that the said impugned orders have
been issued in violation of the provisions of article 311 (2) of the
constitution of India. Article 311 (2), inter-alia, provides that no
person who is a member of a Civil Service of a State shall be
dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an enquiry in
which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a
reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges.
In the case of N. Ramanaiah (Supra) cited on behalf of
the petitioner, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that any order inflicting
the punishment of dismissal, removal without giving the
opportunities as is required by article 311 (2) of the constitution of
India would be null and void as violative of an express constitutional
requirement. This Court respectfully follow the principal laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Page 12
[15] In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to
the following facts:-
1) No charges was framed against the petitioner;
2) No enquiry was held with regard to any charges
framed against the petitioner after giving an
opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself;
3) A reasonable opportunity of being heard was not
given to the petitioner before terminating him
from his service.
In view of the above factual positions, this Court come
to the conclusion without any hesitation that the service of the
petitioner was terminated by issuing the impugned orders in flagrant
violation of the provisions under article 311 (2) of the constitution of
India and in complete violation of the principles of natural justice.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed by quashing and
setting aside the impugned orders dated 22.01.2021 and
16.11.2021.
[16] By an order dated 19.01.2022 passed by this Court in the
present writ petition, the impugned termination order dated
Page 13
16.11.2021 was suspended. It has been submitted by the learned
senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that as the impugned
termination order was suspended by the said interim order dated
19.01.2022, the petitioner was allowed to continue in his service till
today.
[17] In view of the above, it is hereby directed that the
respondents No. 1 & 2 shall allow the petitioner to continue in his
service with all consequential benefits.
[18] With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is
disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs.
JUDGE
Sapana
Page 14
