Manipur High Court
Yum 11:16:57 vs The State Of Manipur Represented By The on 11 September, 2025
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Item No. 11
LUCY Digitally
signed by IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
LUCY AT IMPHAL
GUR GURUMAYU
M
UMA Date:
2025.09.15
WP(C) No. 633 of 2015
YUM 11:16:57
+05'30'
Subedar Harendra Laishram , aged about 50 years
J.C. No. 341, 6th IRB, Pangei, S/o (L) L. Ibomcha
Singh and a resident of Nongmeibund Seiram
Leirak, P.O & P.S. Porompat in Imphal East District,
Manipur.
....Petitioner/s
Vs.
1. The State of Manipur represented by the
Commissioner, Principal Secretary (Home), to the
Govt. of Manipur at Imphal.
2. The Director General of Police, Manipur at Imphal.
3. The Commissioner 6th IRB, Pangei at Imphal East
District, Manipur.
....Respondent/s
WP(C) No. 633 of 2015 Page 1
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(ORAL)
11.09.2025
[1] Heard Mr. N. Umakanta, learned Sr. counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned
GA appearing for the respondents.
[2] The present writ petition has been filed with a
prayer, inter alia, for quashing the portion of order dated
03.05.2012 issued by the Director General of Police (DGP),
Manipur whereby the petitioner was denied full payment of
his monthly pay and allowances during the period of his
suspension, i.e. from 14.11.2008 to 24.05.2010. The
petitioner also made a prayer for directing the authorities to
give full payment of his monthly pay and allowances after
deducting the subsistence allowances received by him during
the period of his suspension.
[3] The brief facts of the case is that while the
petitioner was serving as Subedar in the Manipur Police
Department, he was placed under suspension by an order
dated 14.11.2008 issued by the Director General of Police
WP(C) No. 633 of 2015 Page 2
(DGP), Manipur in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding
against the petitioner. In the said suspension order, it is
provided that the petitioner will be entitled to subsistence
allowances as admissible under the rule during the period of
his suspension.
[4] When the authorities did not proceed with the
disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner, for a long time,
the petitioner approach the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court by
filing a writ petition being WP(C) No. 533 of 2009 challenging
the contemplated departmental enquiry against him. The said
writ petition was disposed of by the Guwahati High Court by
a judgment and order dated 21.12.2009 by giving the
following directions;
"6. For the aforesaid reason, this Court is of the considered
view that the petitioner cannot be placed under suspension
for an indefinite period till sub-mission of the charge sheet of
the said FIR. The apex court in OP Gupta Vs. Union of India:
(1987) 4 SCC 328 held that long continuation of suspension
pending departmental enquiry is punitive and affects the
means of livelihood of the suspended employee. The apex
court in the State of Punjab Vs. Goyal (1995) 2 SCC 570 held
that the departmental enquiry should be completed within a
reasonable period.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is disposed of
by directing the State respondents to complete the
departmental enquiry against the petitioner within a period
of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this Judgment and order and, in case of failure on the part of
WP(C) No. 633 of 2015 Page 3
the State respondents to complete the departmental enquiry
against the petitioner within the stipulated period, the
petitioner should be re-instated in service forthwith without
prejudicing the departmental enquiry."
[5] Subsequently, when the authorities cannot complete
the departmental enquiry against the petitioner, the Director
General of Police (DGP), Manipur, who is the disciplinary
authority, issued an order dated 24.05.2010 revoking the
suspension order of the petitioner without any prejudice to
the pending departmental enquiry against the petitioner.
The said order has been issued in compliance with the
direction given by the Hon'ble Guwahati High court in its
judgment and order dated 21.12.2009 passed in WP(C) No.
533 of 2009.
[6] Later on, after completion of the departmental
enquiry against the petitioner and on the basis of the report
submitted by the enquiry officer, the Director General of
Police (DGP), Manipur issued an order dated 03.05.2012 by
which the departmental enquiry against the petitioner was
closed and the petitioner was exonerated honourably from all
the charges made against him and he was reinstated back in
service with immediate effect. In the said order, it is provided
WP(C) No. 633 of 2015 Page 4
that the period of his suspension, i.e. from 14.11.2008 till the
date of his reinstatement in service, i.e. 24.05.2010 will be
treated as on duty for all purposes except for pay and
allowances, which will be restricted to his subsistence
allowances already drawn by the petitioner. Having being
aggrieved by this part of order, the petitioner preferred this
writ petition challenging the same.
[7] The case of the petitioner is that as he had been
exonerated honourably from all charges levelled against him,
he is entitled to get all the service benefits including full pay
and allowances for the period he was placed under
suspension after deducting the subsistence allowances
already drawn by him, as provided under F.R. 54-B (3) of the
Fundamental Rules.
[8] In support of his contention, the learned Sr. counsel
appearing for the petitioner cited the judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Deepali Gundu
Surwase vs Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya
(D. ED.) and Others" reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324
wherein at paragraph 22 of the judgment it has been held as
under;
WP(C) No. 633 of 2015 Page 5
"22. The very idea of restoring an employee to the position
which he held before dismissal or removal or termination of
service implies that the employee will be put in the same
position in which he would have been but for the illegal
action taken by the employer. The injury suffered by a
person, who is dismissed or removed or is otherwise
terminated from service cannot easily be measured in terms
of money. With the passing of an order which has the effect
of severing the employer-employee relationship, the latter's
source of income gets dried up. Not only the employee
concerned, but his entire family suffers grave adversities.
They are deprived of the source of sustenance. The children
are deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of
education and advancement in life. At times, the family has
to borrow from the relatives and other acquaintance to avoid
starvation. These sufferings continue till the competent
adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the action taken
by the employer. The reinstatement of such an employee,
which is preceded by a finding of the competent
judicial/quasi-judicial body or court that the action taken by
the employer is ultra vires the relevant statutory provisions
or the principles of natural justice, entitles the employee to
claim full back wages. If the employer wants to deny back
wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get
consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to specifically
plead and prove that during the intervening period the
employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same
emoluments. The denial of back wages to an employee, who
has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would
amount to indirectly punishing the employee concerned and
rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to
pay back wages including the emoluments."
[9] In the case of "Raj Narain vs Union of India &
ors" reported in (2019) 5 SCC 809 the Hon'ble Apex
Court held as under;
"7. The point that remains to be considered is whether the
appellant is entitled to payment of full wages between 1979
WP(C) No. 633 of 2015 Page 6
and 1987. The appellant was placed under suspension on 23-
10-1979 and his suspension was revoked on 21-10-1987. An
interesting development took place during the interregnum
by which the disciplinary proceedings were dropped on 21-3-
1983. It is clear from the record that the appellant was the
one who was seeking postponement of the departmental
enquiry in view of the pendency of criminal case. The order
of suspension was in contemplation of disciplinary
proceedings. By virtue of the disciplinary proceedings being
dropped, the appellant becomes entitled to claim full salary
for the period from the date of his suspension till the date of
closure of the departmental enquiry. Thereafter, the
respondents took four years to reinstate him by revoking his
suspension. The order of suspension dated 23-10-1979 came
to an end on 21-3-1983 which is the date on which
disciplinary proceedings were dropped. The appellant ought
to have been reinstated immediately thereafter unless a
fresh order was passed, placing him under suspension during
the pendency of the criminal trial which did not happen.
Ultimately, the appellant was reinstated by an order dated
21-10-1987 by revocation of the order of suspension.
Though, technically, the learned Additional Solicitor General
is right in submitting that the impugned judgment does not
even refer to the IA, we are not inclined to remit the matter
to the High Court at this stage for fresh consideration of this
point. We hold that the appellant is entitled for full wages
from 23-10-1979 to 21-10-1987 after adjustment of the
amounts already paid towards subsistence allowance.
8. For the reasons mentioned above, we approve the
judgment of the High Court by holding that the appellant
shall be entitled for back wages only from the date of
acquittal on 31-8-2001, till the date of his reinstatement on
20-1-2003. Further, the appellant shall be entitled to full
salary from 23-10-1979 to 21-10-1987."
[10] Relying on the provision of the F.R. 54-B (3) of the
Fundamental Rules and the above mentioned judgment, it
has been submitted by the learned Sr. counsel that the act of
WP(C) No. 633 of 2015 Page 7
the respondents in denying the petitioner the full payment of
his monthly pay and allowances minus the subsistence
allowances already received by the petitioner is ultra vires the
establish provision of law and as such, a prayer has been
made for allowing the present petition by directing the
authorities to release the full pay and allowances due payable
to the petitioner for the period from 14.11.2008 to
24.05.2010 after deducting the subsistence allowances
already drawn by the petitioner within a stipulated period.
[11] Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned GA appearing for the
respondents submitted that the present writ petition is not
maintainable for the following two reasons;
(i) That the petitioner has not exhausted the
statutory forum available under the Assam
Police Manual which provides for filing an
appeal against an order passed by the
authorities, if the petitioner is aggrieved by
such order.
(ii) In the present petition, the petitioner has
not stated that he has no other adequate
and alternative remedy and that the remedy
WP(C) No. 633 of 2015 Page 8
sought for will be complete and adequate,
as provided under the Manipur, High Court
Rules.
[12] The learned GA submitted that on the basis of the
aforesaid 2(two) reasons, the present petition be dismissed
as not maintainable.
[13] I have heard at length the submission advanced by
the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also
carefully examined the material available on record.
[14] With regard to submission advanced by the learned
GA regarding the availability of filling a statutory appeal as
provided under the Assam Police Manual, it is to be pointed
out that in Rule 66(V) under the heading Reserved,
Ordnance, Clothing, Guards and Escorts of part III of the
Assam Police Manual, it is provided that a member of the
service shall be entitled to appeal from an order imposing on
him any of the penalties specified in Rule 66(II) for major
punishment.
[15] Under Rule 66 (II) (2) of the aforesaid rule, major
penalties are specified as under:-
"2. Major penalties. (a) Dismissal from service which shall
ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment; (b)
WP(C) No. 633 of 2015 Page 9
Removal from service which shall not be disqualification
for future employment; (c) Compulsory retirement; (d)
Reduction to a lower service, grade or post or to a lower
time scale or to a lower stage in a time scale; (e)
Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary
loss caused by negligance or breach of orders to the
Government of Assam or the Central Government or any
other State Government, or any local or other authority to
whom services of a Government servant had been lent;
(f) Black mark; (g) With-holding of increments or
promotion; (h) Censure."
[16] Taking into consideration the aforesaid provisions of
law as provided under the Assam Police Manual, this Court is
satisfied that as no major penalty had been imposed upon
the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that no
statutory appeal lies against the order passed by the Director
General of Police (DGP), Manipur and as such, there is no
substance in the submission advanced by the learned GA and
accordingly, the same is hereby rejected.
[17] So far as the second ground raised by the learned
GA is concerned, merely because a sentence has not been
inserted in the writ petition, which is purely in the nature of a
procedural requirement, this Court is inclined to reject the
petition specially when the petitioner has been able to make
out a solid case based on established principal of law.
WP(C) No. 633 of 2015 Page 10
Accordingly, this Court is inclined to reject the objection
raised on behalf of the respondents.
[18] In the present case, it is an admitted position of fact
that the petitioner was initially placed under suspension by
order dated 14.11.2008 issued by the Director General of
Police (DGP), Manipur in contemplation of a departmental
enquiry against him. In the said order, it is provided that he
will be entitled to subsistence allowances as admissible under
Rules during the period of his suspension. Subsequently, in
compliance with the judgment and order dated 21.12.2009
passed by the Guwahati High Court in WP(C) No. 533 of
2009, the Director General of Police (DGP), Manipur issued
an order dated 24.05.2010 by which the suspension order of
the petitioner was revoked and reinstated the petitioner back
in service without prejudice to the pending departmental
enquiry. It is also an undenied fact that the petitioner
received the subsistence allowances due payable to him as
provided under the rule during the period of his suspension,
i.e., with effect from 14.11.2008 till 24.05.2010.
[19] It is also on record, that after completion of the
departmental enquiry against the petitioner and on the basis
WP(C) No. 633 of 2015 Page 11
of the report submitted by the enquiry officer, the petitioner
was exonerated honourably from all the charges leveled
against him and the departmental enquiry against him was
also closed by an order dated 03.05.2012 issued by the
Director General of Police (DGP), Manipur.
[20] The only grievances of the petitioner is that in the
said order dated 03.05.2012, the authorities denied full
payment of the petitioner's pay and allowances for the period
he was placed under suspension and restricting his pay and
allowances only to the subsistence allowances already drawn
by him.
[21] Under F.R. 54-B (3) it is provided as under;
"(3) Where the authority competent to order
reinstatement is of the opinion that the suspension was
wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall,
subject to the provisions of sub-rule (8) be paid the full
pay and allowances to which he would have been
entitled, had he not been suspended:
Provided that where such authority is of the opinion
that the termination of the proceedings instituted
against the Government servant had been delayed due
to reasons directly attributable to the Government
servant, it may, after giving him an opportunity to
make his representation within sixty days from the date
on which the communication in this regard is served on
him and after considering the representation, if any,
submitted by him, direct, for reasons to be recorded in
writing, that the Government servant shall be paid for
the period of such delay only such amount (not being
WP(C) No. 633 of 2015 Page 12
the whole) of such pay and allowances as it may
determine."
[22] Taking into consideration the provisions of F.R. 54-B
(3) as well as the principal of law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the cases of "Deepali Gundu Surwase"
(Supra) and "Raj Narain" (Supra) this court is satisfied that
the petitioner is entitled to receive the full pay and
allowances minus the subsistence allowances already
received by him for the period he was placed under
suspension, i.e. from 14.11.2008 till 24.05.2010.
Accordingly, the portion of the impugned order
dated 03.05.2012 issued by the Director General of Police
(DGP), Manipur, so far as it denied the full payment of the
petitioner's pay and allowances for the period he was placed
under suspension, i.e., w.e.f 14.11.2008 till 24.05.2010 is
hereby quashed and set aside.
[23] Consequently, the respondents are hereby directed
to released to the petitioner the full pay and allowances due
payable to him minus the subsistence allowances already
drawn by him for the aforesaid period as expeditiously as
possible preferably within a period of three months from
today.
WP(C) No. 633 of 2015 Page 13
[24] It is made clear that in the event if the respondents
failed to pay to the petitioner the full pay and allowances as
directed herein above, the total amount which is due payable
to the petitioner shall carry an interest of 9% per annum
from the date the petitioner is entitled to receive such
amount till the date of actual payment.
With the aforesaid direction, the present writ
petition is disposed of. Parties are to bear their own cost.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Lucy
WP(C) No. 633 of 2015 Page 14
