Partly allowed

S. Indra Singh v. State of Manipur and Another

Manipur HC11 Nov 2021WP(C)/699/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondent authorities to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 01.07.2021 within eight weeks regarding pending disciplinary action against seven Veterinary Department employees, without directing any specific outcome on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.07.2021 within eight weeks and pass a reasoned order after affording a reasonable opportunity to all concerned.

S. Indra Singh Vs State of Manipur and Another — Service and Employment | Manipur HC (2021)

¶1

P a g e | 1

¶2

SHAMURAI LATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA

¶3

Digita lly signed by SHAMURAILATPA M SUSHIL SHARMA Date: 2021.11.11 14:00:03 +05'30'

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL W.P.(C) No.699 of 2021

¶5

Dr. S. Indra Singh , aged about 58 years old S/o (Late) S. Gourachand Singh, a resident of Haoreibi Mayai Leikai P.O. & P.S. Wangoi, Imphal West District, Manipur795003, at present working as Deputy Director Director, Sub-Divisional Veterinary Hospital, Jiribam.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

- VERSUS-

¶8

1. The State of Manipur, represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur, Old Secretariat, South Block Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal District Imphal, Manipur-795001.

¶9

1. The Commissioner, (Vety. & A.H.), Government of Manipur, Old Secretariat, South Block Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal District Imphal, Manipur-795001.

¶10

----- Respondents.

¶11

W.P.(C) No. 699 of 2021

¶12

P a g e | 2

¶13

B E F O R E

¶14

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MV MURALIDARAN

¶15

For the petitioner	: :	Mr. N. Jotendro, Sr.Advocate.
For the respondents	::	Mr. Th. Sukumar, GA.
Date of Hearing & Reserving Judgment & Order	::	27.10.2021
Date of Judgment & Order	::	11.11.2021.

¶16

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

¶17

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner

¶18

seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to suspend seven employees of the Veterinary Department in compliance with Clause (b) of Rule 10(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 since Criminal (Complaint) Case No.44 of 2021 is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal East against the said seven employees of the Veterinary Department, coupled with a prayer to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 01.7.2021.

¶19

Heard Mr. N. Jotendro, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Th. Sukumar, the learned Government Advocate for the respondent State. With the consent of both the Counsel, the writ petition itself has been taken up for final hearing.

¶20

W.P.(C) No. 699 of 2021

¶21

P a g e | 3

¶22

The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶23

that earlier the petitioner lodged a complaint before Porompat Police Station against seven officers of the Veterinary Department, namely, Dr.Haohijam Kunjo Singh, Chabungban Nandakishore, Chabungban Ashokumar, Asem Nipamacha Singh, Aheibam Kullachandra Singh, Thounaojam Jadumani Singh and Khuraijam Suraj for attacking the petitioner and the case has been registered in FIR No.235(8) 2013 under Sections 330, 352, 506, 511 and 34 IPC. After investigation, the Officer-in-charge of Porompat Police Station filed a final report before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal East and the case was returned on the ground of insufficient evidence on 26.3.2018.

¶24

The learned senior counsel further submitted that since subsequently the investigation officer has collected fresh evidences, he filed an application before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate praying to permit him to withdraw the final report which was earlier filed and sought further investigation in the matter. By the order dated 11.10.2018, the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, granted permission to conduct further investigation of the FIR No.235(8)2013. However, the same has been again closed vide a final report dated 24.7.2020.

¶25

W.P.(C) No. 699 of 2021

¶26

P a g e | 4

¶27

The learned senior counsel next submitted that in

¶28

protest with the final report filed by the investigating officer, the petitioner has filed a criminal complaint under Section 190 Cr.P.C. against the said seven employees and same has been taken on file as Criminal (Complaint) Case No.44 of 2021 which is now pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal East.

¶29

The learned senior counsel then submitted that on 1.7.2021, the petitioner also preferred a representation to the respondent authorities requesting them to take disciplinary action against the seven employees under Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules during the pendency of the Criminal (Complaint) Case No.44 of 2021. However, the same has not yet been considered and disposed of by the respondent authorities till date.

¶30

It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is now serving as Deputy Director at the Sub-Divisional Veterinary Hospital, Jiribam and there is a threat to his life from the hands of the aforesaid seven employees and therefore, he may be posted at DVO, Imphal West.

¶31

On the other hand, Mr. Th. Sukumar, the learned Government Advocate for the State submitted that since there is no specific threat to the petitioner by the seven employees referred to

¶32

W.P.(C) No. 699 of 2021

¶33

P a g e | 5

¶34

by the petitioner, the case was closed based on the final report submitted by the police authorities. However, the pendency of the Criminal (Complaint) Case No.44 of 2021 and the representation dated 01.7.2021 made to the respondent authorities to take disciplinary action under CCS (CCA) Rules against the seven employees are not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent State.

¶35

This Court considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record.

¶36

The grievance of the petitioner is that on 12.3.2013 at about 2.00 p.m., when he went to the office of the Joint Director, Veterinary, Imphal East, seven employees namely Dr.Haohijam Kunjo Singh, Chabungban Nandakishore, Chabungban Ashokumar, Asem Nipamacha Singh, Aheibam Kullachandra Singh, Thounaojam Jadumani Singh and Khuraijam Suraj Singh, jointly assaulted him under a common object and also obtained his signature by using force. Immediately, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the Porompat Police Station and the case was registered as FIR Case No.235(8)2013 and on an enquiry, the said complaint was closed based on the final report submitted by the police authorities. Again based on the request of the investigation

¶37

W.P.(C) No. 699 of 2021

¶38

P a g e | 6

¶39

agency, the said case was revived, however, the same was again closed on 24.7.2020. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a Criminal (Complaint) Case No.44 of 2021 before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal East and the same is now pending. The further grievance of the petitioner is that on 1.7.2021, he has submitted a representation to the Hon’ble Minister for Veterinary, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Manipur and the Commissioner, Veterinary requesting to take action against the aforesaid seven employees under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. However, the said representation has not been considered by the concerned authorities till date.

¶40

Admittedly, the complaint case filed by the petitioner being Criminal (Complaint) Case No.44 of 2021 is pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal East and the petitioner has produced a copy of the cause list showing that the matter was last called and taken up on 29.09.2021. It also appears that pending criminal case, on 19.4.2021, the Joint Director (Veterinary) requested the DGP, Manipur and the SP, CID, Imphal to intimate whether there is any threat to the life of the petitioner in order to review his transfer and posting order at Jiribam. Pursuant to the letter dated 19.4.2021, the SP, CID (SB), Imphal submitted a report stating that there is no specific threat to the petitioner. In the

¶41

W.P.(C) No. 699 of 2021

¶42

P a g e | 7

¶43

instant case, the petitioner insists for suspension of the aforesaid seven employees.

¶44

It is true that a Government servant against whom a proceeding has been taken on a criminal charge but who is not actually detained in custody may be placed under suspension by an order of the competent authority under Rule 10(1)(b) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. If the charge is connected with the official position of the Government servant or involving any moral turpitude on his part, suspension shall be ordered under the said Rule unless there are exceptional reasons for not adopting this course.

¶45

At this juncture, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the failure of the aforesaid seven employees to inform their superior officials qua the lodging of FIR, their arrest by the police and release on bail bond subsequently and also pendency of the Criminal Complaint Case No.44 of 2021 filed against them which is pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal East till date amount to suppression of material information to higher officials and the same will render them liable to disciplinary action and, as such, they can be proceeded against under Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

¶46

W.P.(C) No. 699 of 2021

¶47

P a g e | 8

¶48

Admittedly, the submission of the representation dated 01.7.2021 by the petitioner and receipt of the same are not disputed by the respondent authorities. Since the representation of the petitioner dated 01.7.2021 has not been considered by the respondent authorities till date, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to consider the same and passed a reasoned order on it. Moreover, it is not for the Court to direct the respondent authorities to take action one way or the other. It is the bounden duty of an employer to consider the virtuous conduct of its employees at workplace and ensure that the act of the employee is within the contours of the law governing such establishment. This Court, by no stretch of imagination, can direct any employer to proceed disciplinarily action against its employee. It is for the employer to decide such course of action based on the facts and circumstances of the given case, based on the law.

¶49

In view of the above, without going into the merits and demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders:

¶50

(b) The respondent authorities are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 1.7.2021 within a

¶51

W.P.(C) No. 699 of 2021

¶52

P a g e | 9

¶53

period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording a reasonable opportunity to all concerned.

¶54

(c) It is made clear that this Court has not delved into the merits of the case in the Criminal (Complaint) Case No.44 of 2021 filed by the petitioner which is stated to be pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal East and it is for the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal East to decide the merits of the complaint in accordance with law uninfluenced by the observation, if any made in this order.

¶55

(d) No costs.

¶56

Registry is directed to issue copy of this order to both

¶57

the parties through their WhatsApp/e-mail.

JUDGE

FR/NFR

Sushil

W.P.(C) No. 699 of 2021

S. Indra Singh v. State of Manipur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Indra Singh v. State of Manipur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Manipur and 3 Ors. Vs Yendrembam Chandrashekhar Singh and 28 Ors.

State of Manipur and Anr. Vs Seram James Angomcha and 12 Ors.

State of Manipur and 3 Ors. Vs Ng Bijita Devi and 5 Ors.

(Retd.) M/370529W Warrant Officer/Pharmacist Kishan Lal Vs Ajay Kumar Bhalla, (Ias) and 2 Others

M/371458 Wo/Pharmacist, Ak Tikendrajit Singh Vs Ajay Kumar Bhalla, (Ias) and 2 Others

P Nengkhanchin and 7 Ors. Vs State of Manipur and 6 Ors.