Manipur High Court
Md.Raheijuddin Sheikh vs State Of Manipur Through The Principal ... on 31 January, 2025
Author: A.Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A.Guneshwar Sharma
2025:MNHC:23
Non-reportable
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No.516 of 2024
Md.Raheijuddin Sheikh, aged about 55 years,
s/o Md.Minhajuddin of Sangaiyumpham
Puleipokpi, Thoubal District presently staying
at Mantripukhri, Friends Colony near New
Secretariat, PO Mantripukhri P.S Heingang,
Imphal East District, Manipur.
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. State of Manipur through the Principal Secretary/
Commissioner/ Secretary (University and Higher
Education), Government of Manipur, Secretariat
Block, PO & PS Imphal, Imphal Manipur 795001.
2. The Director, University and Higher Education,
Government of Manipur, Governor Road,
Imphal 795001.
... Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the Petitioner :: Mr.H.S.Paonam, Sr.Advocate
Mr.Chinglemba, Advocate
For the Respondents:: Mr.Th.Sukumar, Government Advocate
Date of hearing :: 23.10.2024
Date of order :: 31.01.2025
O R D E R (CAV)
[1] By the present writ petition, petitioner, who was earlier
suspended vide order dated 22.3.2024, is challenging order dated
19.6.2024 extending the suspension on the ground that the impugned
2025:MNHC:23
order is issued/communicated after expiry of 90 days in violation of
Rules 10 (7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
[2] Facts leading to filing the present writ petition is
recapitulated as under.
The petitioner who continued to serve the State
Government as full-fledged College Teacher since 1995 was to promote
to the post of Associate Professor in terms of the UGC Guidelines and
consequently, appointed as Nodal Officer of DM Community College,
Imphal, which is a flagship programme of the UGC. The petitioner was
allowed to hold the charge of Director, DDU KAUSHAL KENDRA, at DM
Community College. The petitioner continued to hold the post of Nodal
Officer in DM Community College while he was Regular Government
College Principal.
[3] It is stated that upon recommendation by the MPSC,
petitioner was appointed as Principal of Government Colleges and
posted as Principal of Kakching Khunou College vide order dated
5.3.2020. While the petitioner was in DM Community College, he was
pressurized to leave the post of Nodal Officer and he tendered his
resignation as Nodal Officer vide letter dated 14.7.2020 and the same
was accepted vide office letter dated 2.9.2020. Thereafter, petitioner
was transferred from Kakchinng Khunou College, Kakching Khunou to
Lilong Haoreibi College, Lilong and from Lilong Haoreibi College, Lilong
to Moirang College, Moirang vide order dated 22.8.2023.
It is stated that an enquiry committee was constituted for
alleged misappropriation of Rs.1,45,76,703/- by the present petitioner
and one E.Jadu Singh, the then Principal, DM College of Science and the
State Government issued the impugned suspension order dated
2025:MNHC:23
22.3.2024 suspending the petitioner in contemplation of a disciplinary
proceedings. It is further stated that the present petitioner who was
discharging as Principal of Moirang College, would not in any manner
have the accessibility of interfering with the affairs of DM Community
College at the time of suspension order.
[4] It is stated that the petitioner being aggrieved by the
impugned suspension order dated 22.3.2024 submitted a representation
dated 26.3.2024 to the State Government. The State Government was
pleased to issue Memorandum dated 29.4.2024 to proceed with the
Departmental Enquiry proposed to be held against the petitioner.
Petitioner submitted his Statement of Defense on 2.5.2024 against the
charge framed vide Memorandum dated 29.4.2024. Further, the
petitioner submitted supplementary documents on 24.7.2024 in support
of Statement of Defense dated 2.4.2024 and the Enquiry Authority
passed order dated 25.7.2024 regarding holding of Departmental
Enquiry against the petitioner.
It is further stated that during pendency of the
Departmental Enquiry, petitioner submitted a representation dated
25.7.2024 for reinstating him in service as the impugned suspension
order dated 22.3.2024 has not been reviewed and extended within a
period of 90 days from the date of issuance of the suspension order in
terms of Rule 10 (7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965.
It is stated that the petitioner received a Speed Post-dated
30.07.2024 containing the impugned back dated uncommunicated order
dated 19.6.20024 extending the suspension of the petitioner who was
earlier suspended vide order dated 22.3.2024. The petitioner prays for
quashing and setting aside the impugned back dated order dated
19.6.2024 extending the suspension of the petitioner dated 22.3.2024,
2025:MNHC:23
which is further stated to have not been reviewed and extended within
the stipulated period of 90 days.
[5] State respondent Nos.1 and 2 has filed affidavit in
opposition. In the affidavit in opposition it is stated that the suspension
order dated 22.3.2024 was reviewed by a Review Committee constituted
under Rule 13 (iii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 within the statutory
period of 90 days and necessary order dated 19.6.2024 was issued by
the Government. It is further stated that in response to the
representation dated 25.7.2024 of the petitioner, the Administrative
Department vide letter dated 31.7.2024 informed the Petitioner that the
order dated 19.6.2024 for extension of suspension was served to him by
way of dasti service, however the house of the petitioner was
surrounded by water due to flood and attempts to serve the same
remained futile. As such, the same was communicated by way of postal
service via speed post on 18.7.2024 and was received by the petitioner
on 23.7.2024.
[6] Mr. HS Paonam, learned senior counsel for the petitioner
submits that as per Rule 10(7) of CSS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the order of
suspension has to be reviewed and extended before the expiry of the 90
days, failing which the suspension order stands revoked automatically. It
is pointed out that the suspension order dated 22.03.2024 was extended
vide order dated 19.06.2024 and the same was sent to the petitioner
only on 18.07.2024 and delivered to him on 30.07.2024. It is stated that
on 30.07.2024 when the petitioner received the extension order dated
19.06.2024, the statutory 90 days have already lapsed and as such the
extension order was not issued within the said period. It is also
highlighted that posting of an order dated 19.06.2024 only on
2025:MNHC:23
18.07.2024 is prima facie evidence the extension order was back dated
to cover up lacunae. Learned senior counsel emphasises that the back
dated extension dated 19.06.2024 would be effective from the date of
delivery, ie, from 30.07.2024 and by that time the statutory period of 90
days has already expired. Hence, there is extension within 90 days and
the suspension order dated 22.03.2024 stands vacated. In this regard,
reliance is placed on the following judgments to the effect that an order
will be effective from the date of receipt of the order: (i) AIR 1963 SC
395; (ii) AIR 1966 SC 1313; (iii) (2012) 6 SCC 384; (iv) (2007) 7 SCC
309; (v) (2008) 5 SCC 438; (vi) (2010) 9 SCC 157; (vii) (2019) 15 SCC
1. It is prayed that the extension of suspension order dated 19.06.2024
delivered on 30.07.2024 could not be considered as a valid extension
within 90 days prescribed by Rule 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965
and the suspension order dated 22.03.2024 stands automatically
revoked.
[7] Per contra, Mr. Th. Sukumar, learned GA submits that the
extension order dated 19.06.2024 cannot be termed as back dated
without any cogent material. The respondents issued extension order
19.06.2024 thereby extending the suspension order 22.03.2024 well
within 90 days as stipulated by Rule 10(6) & (7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules,
1965. The reason for not enabling to serve the same by dasti has
already been explained in the counter affidavit due to the flood and
prevailing law and order situation in Manipur. Thereafter, the extension
order dated 19.06.2024 was sent by speed post on 18.07.2024 and the
same was delivered on 23.07.2024 as reflected in the tracking report.
Learned GA refers to Rule 10(6) which mandates the authority to review
the suspension order within 90 days and Rule 10(7) stipulates
suspension order valid only for 90 days unless extended before expiry of
2025:MNHC:23
90 days. It is pointed out that the rule does not provide that the order of
extension of suspension has to be communicated to the employee within
the 90 days. Learned GA distinguishes the judgments cited by Mr. H S
Paonam to the fact that those cases are with regard to termination from
service and allotment of plots and not related to the provisions of Rule
10 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 specially sub Rules 6 & 7. Reference is to
made to the decisions of- (i) (2013) 16 SCC 147: CCS rule is a self-
contained code and order of suspension has to been examined within its
ambit. It is submitted that no communication is required to be given
within 90 days; (ii) (2008) 7 SCC 29: an order of dismissal requires
communication and no such requirement for suspension; (iii) (2001) 7
SCC 71: court cannot add words to a statute when same is not intended.
It is submitted communication within 90 days cannot be added to Rule
10; (iv) (2010) 1 SCC 756: without challenging the main order,
consequential order cannot be challenged. It is submitted that without
challenging main suspension order dated 22.03.2024, the petitioner
cannot challenge the extension order dated 19.06.2024. It is prayed that
the writ petition be dismissed being devoid of any merit.
[8] From perusal of the pleadings and submissions made at
bar, this Court frames the question involved in the present case as:
"Whether the extension order of suspension has to be
communicated to the employee within 90 days or extension
order has to be issued within 90 days within the meaning of
Rule 10 (6) & (7) of CSS (CCA) Rules, 1965?"
[9] It will be fruitful to reproduce the provisions of Rule 10 (6)
& (7) of CSS (CCA) Rules, 1965 as below:
(6) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made
under this rule shall be reviewed by the authority which is
competent to modify or revoke the suspension before expiry of
2025:MNHC:23
90 days from the date of order of suspension on the
recommendation of the Review Committee constituted for the
purpose and pass orders either extending or revoking the
suspension. Subsequent reviews shall be made before expiry of
the extended period of suspension. Extension of suspension
shall not be for a period exceeding 180 days at a time.
(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule 5 (a), an
order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under
sub-rules (1) or (2) of this rule shall not be valid after a period
of 90 days unless it is extended after review, for a further period
before the expiry of 90 days.
From the above provisions, it is clear that the suspension
has to be reviewed and extended before expiry of the 90 days, failing
which the initial suspension order shall not be valid. In other words, on
failure to extend the order of suspension before expiry of 90 days, the
suspension order automatically revokes or expires. The crucial words are
'extension before expiry of 90 days' and the rule does not stipulate that
the order of extension should be communicated to the employee before
the expiry of 90 days.
[10] This Court finds substance in the submission of Mr. Th.
Sukumar, learned GA that extension before 90 days would be sufficient
compliance of statutory requirements under Rule 10 (6) & (7) of CSS
(CCA) Rules, 1965. Since the rule is silent about communication to the
employee before expiry of 90 days, the contention of Mr. H S Paonam,
learned senior counsel lacks credence. The cases cited by the petitioner
are not concerning Rule 10 and hence are not applicable to the peculiar
facts of the present case. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Pending
application, if any, stands disposed of. No cost.
2025:MNHC:23
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Priyojit
KH. by KH. JOSHUA
JOSHUA MARING
Date: 2025.01.31
MARING 12:50:11 +05'30'
