Moirangthem Ranjit Singh vs State Of Manipur

Heard Mr. Juno Rahaman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Niranjan Sanasam, learned GA appearing for the respondents.

[1] The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 10.01.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal placing the petitioner

under suspension with immediate effect. The said suspension order has been passed on the basis of the report dated 09.01.2012 submitted by the

Superintendent of Police, Thoubal informing the office of the Deputy Commissioner that the petitioner, who was serving as the Process Sever in the

DC’s, office, Thoubal, has been arrested on 04.01.2012 in connection with FIR No. 3 (1) 2012 (TBL) PS U/S 302/34 IPC and remanded into

police custody till 16.01.2012 by the Chief Magistrate, Thoubal.

[2] It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that bail application was filed for releasing the petitioner in connection with the

aforesaid FIR case before the Court of Sessions Judge, Manipur West and in the said bail application the learned Sessions Judge, Manipur West,

passed an order on 15.06.2012 in Cril. Misc. (B) No. 90 of 2012 for releasing the petitioner on bail with certain conditions.

It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the then Minister (RD & PR/Eco & Stat) wrote and U.O. dated 12.10.2016 to the Deputy

Commissioner, Thoubal requesting the latter for earlier revocation of the suspension order of the petitioner. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner,

Thoubal District wrote a letter to the commissioner (Revenue), Government of Manipur on 31.08.2016 informing the letter about the status report of

the FIR case as submitted by senior Superintendent of Police, Thoubal and requesting for examining the request of the Hon’ble Minister for

revocation of the suspension order of the petitioner and to take further appropriate necessary actions as deem fit under the rules.

[3] It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that under rule 10(6) of the CCS(CCA) rules, it is provided that an order

of suspension made for deem to have been made under that rule shall be reviewed by the authority which is competent to modify or revoke the

suspension before expiry of 90 days from the effective date of suspension on the recommendation of the Review Committee constituted for the

purpose and passed orders either extending or revoking the suspension. Further under rule 10 (7), it is provided that an order of suspension made or

deem to have been made under sub rule (1) or (2) of rule 10 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.

[4] It is the case of the petitioner that even after about 9 years from the date of issue of the suspension order, the authorities have neither passed any

order extending the period of suspension in terms of the aforesaid rule 10 (6) and (7) of the CCS (CCA) rules nor have the authorities initiated any

departmental enquiry against the petitioner till date. Accordingly, it has been submitted before this Court that the impugned suspension order

automatically ceased to operate as provided under rule 10 (6) and (7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules and the impugned suspension order deserves to be

quashed and set aside. It is also prayed on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith.

[5] Mr. Niranjan Sanasam, learned GA appearing for the respondents submitted that since the petitioner had been in police custody for more than 48

hours the impugned suspension is to be deemed to be issued under rule 10 (2) of the CCS (CCA) rules. It is further submitted by the learned GA that

under the proviso to rule 10 (7) of the CCS (CCA) rules, it is provided that no reviewed of the suspension order shall be necessary in the case of

deem suspension under rule 10 (2), if the Government servant continues to be under detention at the time of completion of 90 days of suspension and

the 90 days period in such case will count form the date the Government servant detained in custody is released from detention or from the date on

which the fact of his release from detention is intimated to the appointing authority, whichever is later.

[6] The learned GA further submitted that in view of the proviso to sub rule (7) of rule 10 of CCS (CCA) rules, no reviewed of the suspension order

of the petitioner is required as the factum of the release of the petitioner from his detention was not intimated to his appointing authority. It is also

submitted that in the present case, the release of the petitioner from his detention was never intimated to the appointing authority and therefore, there

were no requirement of reviewing the suspension order. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned GA that the contention made on behalf of the

petitioner that the impugned suspension order ceased to operate after expiry of 90 days is not applicable in the present case.

[7] On perusal of the letter dated 31.08.2016 of the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal District addressed to the Commissioner (Revenue), Government

of Manipur, it is quite clear that the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal District, who is the appointing authority of the petitioner, called for a status report

from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Thoubal District under a letter dated 03.08.2016 in connection with the said FIR case. In response to the

said letter, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Thoubal District, submitted a status report of the said FIR case under a letter dated 16.08.2016. On the

basis of the said report submitted by the senior Superintendent of Police, Thoubal District, Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal District wrote the said letter

to the Commissioner (Revenue), Government of Manipur, to consider for revocation of the suspension order of the petitioner as requested by the said

Hon’ble Minister and to take further appropriate necessary action has deemed fit under the rules. In view of the aforesaid letter an irresistible

conclusion can be drawn that the appointing authority has been duly informed about the released of the petitioner from detention in connection with the

said FIR case.

In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents has failed to act in terms of provisions under rule 10 (6) and (7) of the

CCS (CCA) rules and to extend the period of suspension of the petitioner.

[8] On perusal of the relevant records this Court also find that no charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner in connection with the said

FIR case as there was not concrete evidence to submit the charge sheet against the petitioner.

[9] In view of the above, I am also of the considered view that keeping the petitioner under suspension for more than 9 years without initiating any

departmental enquiry against him is too harsh and not justifiable. Accordingly, the said impugned suspension order dated 10.01.2012 is hereby quashed

and set aside and respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith.

With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is allowed, however, without any cost.

A copy of this order be furnished to the counsel appearing for the parties through their e-mail/whatsapp.