Manipur High Court
G.A. Lata Devi vs State Of Manipur on 28 May, 2025
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
1
LAIREN
MAYUM Digitally signed by
LAIRENMAYUM
Item No. 92
INDRAJE INDRAJEET SINGH IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Date: 2025.05.29
ET 16:52:56 +05'30' AT IMPHAL
SINGH
WP(C) No. 713 of 2023
G.A. Lata Devi Petitioner
Vs.
State of Manipur Respondent
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
JUDGMENT
(Oral)
28.05.2025
Heard Mr. N. Surendrajit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner;
and Mr. Th. Vashum, learned G.A. appearing for the respondent.
The present writ petition has been filed assailing the memorandum
dated 27.09.2023 issued by the Commissioner of Excise, Manipur for
initiating a departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The charges framed
against the petitioner is that she used a fake educational certificate at the
time of her appointment as a Lady Constable in the Excise Department,
Manipur.
[2] The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was appointed
as a Lady Constable in the Excise Department, Manipur by an order dated
26.03.1979. While she was in service, the Vigilance Department registered a
case being Vigilance Case No. 14/V/SP-V/2009 and made an enquiry to find
out whether the educational certificate produced by the petitioner for
entering government service is a fake or fabricated document. After holding
an enquiry, the Director of Vigilance, Manipur, made a recommendation to
the Commissioner of Excise, Manipur to initiate a departmental proceedings
against the petitioner on the ground that the educational certificate of the
petitioner for passing class-IX from Wangkhei Girls' High School, which was
produced and used by her at the time of appointment as a Lady Constable in
Excise Department, Manipur, is a fake certificate. Despite the said
recommendation made by the Vigilance Department, the Excise Department
did not initiate any departmental enquiry against the petitioner while she was
in service and the petitioner retired from service w.e.f. 30.11.2019 on
attaining the age of superannuation. Later on, the Commissioner of Excise,
Manipur issued the impugned memorandum dated 27.09.2023 for initiating
a departmental enquiry against the petitioner.
[3] Mr. N. Surendrajit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
raised only one ground in challenging the said impugned memorandum. It
has been submitted by the learned counsel that under Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the
Central Civil Services(Pension) Rules, 1972, it is, inter alia, provided that any
departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant
was in service, whether before his retirement, or during his re-employment,
shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years
before such institution. It has been submitted by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner that the charges made against the petitioner is
that the petitioner used a fake educational certificate at the time of her
appointment as a Lady Constable in the Excise Department, Manipur which
occurred in the year 1979 and that the petitioner retired from service on
attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f., 30.11.2019. It has also been
submitted that in the present case, the authorities initiated a departmental
enquiry only in the year 2023 and since the departmental enquiry was not
initiated within 4(four) years from the date of occurrence of the event which
took place in the year 1979, the initiation of the departmental enquiry under
the impugned memorandum is ultra vires the provisions of Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of
the Central Civil Services(Pension) Rules, 1972. The learned counsel
accordingly submitted that on this ground alone, the impugned memorandum
is liable to be quashed and set-aside.
[4] In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the
following case laws:-
(a) State of U.P. & anr. Vrs. Shri Krishna Pandey reported in
(1996) 9 SCC 395, wherein it has been held as under:-
'6. ... In other words, the departmental proceedings must be
instituted before lapse of four years from the date on which the event
of misconduct etc. had taken place. Admittedly, in this case the officer
had retired on 31-3-1987 and the proceedings were initiated on 21-
4-1991. Obviously, the event of embezzlement which caused
pecuniary loss to the State took place prior to four years from the
date of his retirement. Under these circumstances, the State had
disabled itself by their deliberate omissions to take appropriate action
against the respondent and allowed the officer to escape from the
provisions of Regulation 351-A of the Regulations. This order does
not preclude proceeding with the investigation into the offence and
taking action thereon.'
(b) Babu Verghese & ors. Vrs. Bar Council of Kerala & ors.
reported in (1999) 3 SCC 4222 wherein it has been held as
under:-
'31. It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner
of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must
be done in that manner or not at all. The origin of this rule is traceable
to the decision in Taylor V. Taylor which was followed by Lord Roche
in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor who stated as under:
"[W]here a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain
way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all."
32. This Rule has since been approved by this Court in Rao Shiv
Bahadur Singh v. State of V.P. and again in Deep Chand v. State of
Rajasthan. These cases were considered by a three-Judge Bench of
this Court in State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh and the rule laid down in
Nazir Ahmad Case was again upheld. This rule has since been applied
to the exercise of jurisdiction by courts and has also been recognized
as a salutary principle of administrative law.'
(c) Brajendra Singh Yambem vrs. Union of India & anr.
reported in (2016) 9 SCC 20 wherein it has been held as
under:-
34. Rule 9(2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 reads thus:
"9. Right of President to withhold or withdraw pension.- (1) ***
(2)(a) The departmental proceedings referred to in sub-rule (1),
if instituted while the government servant was in service whether
before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the
final retirement of the government servant, be deemed to be
proceedings under this Rule and shall be continued and concluded by
the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as
if the government servant had continued in service:
Provided that where the departmental proceedings are instituted
by an authority subordinate to the President, that authority shall
submit a report recording its findings to the President.
(b) The departmental Proceedings, if not instituted while the
government servant was in service, whether before his retirement, or
during his re-employment-
(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the
President,
(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place
more than four years before such institution, and
(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place
as the President may direct and in accordance with the procedure
applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal
from service could be made in relation to the government servant
during his service."
A perusal of the above Rule makes it clear that if the disciplinary
proceedings are not instituted against the government servant by the
disciplinary authority while he was in service, then the prior sanction
of the President of India is required to institute such proceedings
against such a person. It is also clear that such sanction shall not be
in respect of an event which took place more than four years before
the institution of such disciplinary proceedings.
35. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has
rightly placed strong reliance on Rule 9(2) b(ii) of the CCS(Pension)
Rules, 1972. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant retires from
service on 31-08-2006. The learned Single Judge of the High Court
by way of judgment and order dated 18-5-2006 in Writ Petition (C)
No. 720 of 2022 quashed the disciplinary proceedings in the case
pertaining to the missing arms and ammunition. However, liberty was
granted to the disciplinary authority/enquiry officer to conduct the
disciplinary enquiry afresh after supplying the copies of the
proceedings of the enquiry to the appellant. The said judgment and
order of the Single Judge was challenged by the respondents by way
of Writ Appeal (C) No. 45 of 20016, in which the Division Bench, by
the judgment and order dated 7-11-2006 upheld the order of the
Single Judge of the High Court. It was only pursuant to this that the
fresh memorandum of charges dated 22-8-2008 was issued to the
appellant, which was clearly beyond the period of limitation of four
years as provided for under the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972.
36. Similarly, in the case involving the contraband ganja, the
Single Judge of the High Court by way of the judgment and order
dated 16-6-2006 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 805 of 2005 quashed
the departmental enquiry under the memorandum of charges dated
14-5-1998. The Division Bench dismissed Writ Appeal (C) No. 25 of
2007 filed by the respondents vide judgment and order dated 13-
11-2008 and upheld the order of the learned Single Judge. It was
pursuant to this that the fresh departmental enquiry was initiated
against the appellant on 16-10-2009 after obtaining sanction from the
President of India under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the CCS(Pension) Rules,
1972.
37. The appellant challenged the correctness of the sanction and
charges framed against him before the High Court of Gauhati, Imphal
Bench in WP(C) No. 264 of 2010. The High Court quashed the
memorandum of charges on the ground that it was issued after four
years from the date of the alleged incident. Therefore, it was held
that the said action of the disciplinary authority in initiating
disciplinary proceedings is not valid in law as the same was barred by
limitation as per the provision of Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the CCS(Pension)
Rules, 1972. This important legal aspect of the case was not
considered by the Division Bench of the High Court while setting aside
the common judgment and order dated 1-9-2010 passed by the
learned Single Judge in Writ Petition(C) No. 904 of 2008 (arms and
ammunition case) and Writ Petition (C) No. 264 of 2010 (contraband
ganja case).
38. It is well-established principle of law that if the manner of
doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute then the act
must be done in that manner or not at all. The aforesaid legal position
has been laid down by this Court in Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of
Kerala, the relevant paragraphs of which are extracted hereunder:
(SCC pp. 432-33, paras 31-32)
'31. It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the
manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the
act must be done in that manner or not at all. The origin of this rule
is traceable to the decision in Taylor V. Taylor which was followed by
Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor who stated as under:
'[W]here a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain
way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all.'
32. This Rule has since been approved by this Court
in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh and again in
Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan. These cases were considered by a
three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh
and the rule laid down in Nazir Ahmad Case was again upheld. This
rule has since been applied to the exercise of jurisdiction by courts
and has also been recognized as a salutary principle of administrative
law.'
The aforesaid important aspect of the case should have been
considered by the Division Bench of the High Court instead of
mechanically accepting the argument advanced on behalf of the
respondents that the case of the appellant squarely falls under
9(2)(b)(i) read with Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Therefore, the findings recorded by the Division Bench in the
impugned judgment are erroneous in law and are liable to be set
aside.
[5] Mr. Th. Vashum, learned G.A. appearing for the respondent,
submitted that the Vigilance Department registered a case being Vigilance
Case No. 14/V/SP-V/2009 against the petitioner and made an elaborate
enquiry to find out whether the educational certificate used by the petitioner
for her appointment as a Lady Constable in Excise Department was a false
and fabricated document or not.
After holding an elaborate enquiry and after giving a clear finding that
the educational certificate of the petitioner for passing Class-IX from
Wangkhei Girls' High School and produced and used by her at the time of
appointment as a Lady Constable in Excise Department, Manipur, was a fake
certificate, the Director of Vigilance made a recommendation to the
Commissioner of Excise Department, Manipur, to initiate a departmental
proceedings against the petitioner by writing a letter dated 08.10.2017, before
the petitioner retired from service.
[6] The learned G.A. submitted that even though recommendation
has been made by the Vigilance Department to initiate a departmental
proceedings against the petitioner in the year 2017, the Excise Department
initiated the departmental proceedings against the petitioner only in the
month of September, 2023 by issuing the impugned office memorandum.
The learned G.A., further submitted that the mandate of Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of
the CCS (Pension) Rules is that departmental enquiry can be initiated against
a retired government employee within 4(four) years from the date of his or
her retirement and that as the petitioner retired from service in the year 2019
and as the departmental enquiry was initiated within 4(four) years from the
date of her retirement, the authorities have not committed any illegality and
no interference from this Court is called for.
[7] I have heard at length the submission advanced by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties and also examined carefully the materials
available on record. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to
the following facts:-
(i) That the petitioner joined service as a Lady Constable in the
Excise Department, Manipur on 26.03.1979 and that she retired
as an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Excise w.e.f., 30.11.2019;
(ii) The impugned memorandum for initiating a departmental
enquiry against the petitioner was issued only on 27.09.2023
and that the charges framed against the petitioner is that the
petitioner produced and used a fake educational certificate at
the time of her appointment as a Lady Constable in the Excise
Department, Manipur.
In my considered view, the event of misconduct alleged to have been
committed by the petitioner occurred in the year 1979 and as the
departmental proceedings was initiated against the petitioner only in the
month of September, 2023, that too after her retirement, the initiation of the
departmental enquiry against the petitioner is barred by the provisions of
Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the CCS(Pension) Rules.
[8] Taking into consideration, the above proposition and the
principles of law laid down by the hon'ble Apex Court relied on by the counsel
appearing for the petitioner, this Court is satisfied that the initiation of the
departmental proceedings against the petitioner under the impugned
memorandum dated 27.09.2023 is illegal and accordingly, the same is hereby
quashed and set-aside.
It is made clear that the authorities will not be debarred by this order
from taking any appropriate action against the petitioner as permissible
under law.
With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition is hereby disposed
of.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Indrajeet
