Research › Browse › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 264 (GAU)

N. K. Shiroda Devi Dr. v. State of Manipur

1999-08-10

W.A.SHISHAK

body1999
The petitioner is impugning order of suspension issued by the Chief Secretary on 20th March, 1999 vide Annexure A/15. The petitioner is also impugning the consequential order dated 20th March, 1999 by which the respondent No. 4 is directed to hold the charge of the Director of Health, Manipur with immediate effect without extra remuneration in addition to his normal duty and until further order in public interest. The petitioner also impugns another consequential order issued on 20th March, 1999 under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classifications, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 by which an Inquiry Officer has been appointed to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. Para 3 of the said order reads: “Now, Therefore, the Governor of Manipur in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (2) of the said rule, hereby appoints Shri PC Lawkunga, IAS, Commissioner (Departmental Enquiries), Government of Manipur as Inquiring Authority to inquire into the charges framed against the said Shri/Dr. N. Kshiroda Devi.” 2. I have heard Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. T. Nandakumar, learned Advocate General for respondents 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. HS Paonam, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 at length Several decisions of the Supreme Court as well of the High Court have been cited on behalf of the parties and in support of their respective submissions. I have perused the relevant citations. Upon careful perusal of the pleadings filed on behalf of the parties including relevant documents/impugned orders, though submissions have been made on behalf of the parties from various angles, I am of the view that the only point that should be considered by this Court is as to the legality of the order of suspension issued by the State Government against the writ petitioner. In view of this, it is not necessary for me to give finding on any other submissions not directly connected with the legality or illegality of the order of suspension issued on 20th March, 1999. 3. It may be stated that in 1988 a complaint was made against the writ petitioner by one Satyavama alleging that the writ petitioner was living with the husband of Smti Satyavama. Some enquiry was made by the Director of Vigilance. A report was submitted. 3. It may be stated that in 1988 a complaint was made against the writ petitioner by one Satyavama alleging that the writ petitioner was living with the husband of Smti Satyavama. Some enquiry was made by the Director of Vigilance. A report was submitted. It was stated in the report that the case was a serious one and proper enquiry should be made and major penalty be imposed. However, the said enquiry was closed vide Annexure A/1 to the writ petition dated 10th March, 1998. Relevant portion is as under: “.... In view of the vigilance clearance already issued by the Vigilance Department in April, 1997 and absence of any other police or criminal case pending against her the Govt have decided to close the proposed inquiry.” The enquiry was closed on the basis of letter dated 9th April, 1997 addressed to the Under Secretary (Health) Govt of Manipur by the Deputy Secretary. Para 1 of the said letter states : “I am directed to refer to your letter No. 5/9/96-M dated 28-121996 on the above subject and to state that necessary enquiry has been conducted in respect of Dr. N. Kshiroda Devi, Medical Superintendent of JN Hospital, Imphal and found that State Vigilance Commission has recommended for major penalty against her vide letter No. 6/12/88-V dated 28.1.1989. No other case is pending against the officer. Further, it is requested to ensure before certifying integrity that no DE/Police Case(s) is contemplated against her.” Undoubtedly, the enquiry was closed on the basis of the letter quoted above. This fact cannot be denied. 4. Mr. Nilamani submits that the impugned order of suspension is arbitrary, mala fide and also illegal. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order of suspension was issued because of a representation made against, the writ petitioner by All Manipur Students Union on the allegation that there was leakage of question paper for Female Health Workers' Preliminary Examination. Though it is correct that some representation was filed to the Chief Minister by AMSU, on the alleged leakage of question paper, on perusal of all the relevant documents and particularly the impugned orders, it appears to me that the order of suspension has nothing to do with the representation made by the AMSU. 5. It is also submitted by Mr. 5. It is also submitted by Mr. Nilamani that the order of suspension has been issued simply to accommodate respondent No. 4 and not in public interest. I may state where that in fact a very serious complaint was made against the writ petitioner by Smti. Satyavama stating that the writ petitioner having illicit relation with her husband Shri Ingotombi Singh and that she was treated cruelly by her husband after the petitioner started having illicit relation with him. It may be stated that in fact a divorce suit was instituted being Original (Matrimonial) Suit No.38/1986 for a decree of divorce by Shri Ingotombi Singh against his wife Smti W. Satyavama Devi in the Court of District Judge, Manipur. It may also be stated that the said civil suit for divorce was dismissed on 29.10.1987 for default. Hence it Has .been contended by Mr. T. Nandakumar Singh, learned Advocate General that divorce did not take place at any time. Therefore, continuance of the writ petitioner with the husband of Smti Satyavama Devi as husband and wife is an illicitly relation and is an offence punishable under the relevant conduct rules governing Govt servants. 6. Mr. Nilamani also submits that there is standard form of order of suspension under Rule 10 (1) of the CCS (CC and A) Rules, 1965 which prescribes that the circumstances in which the order of suspension was made must be given in the order of suspension. It is the emphatic submission of Mr. Nilamani that clause , (3) of the said form requires that reason for suspension must be disclosed. As against this Mr. T. Nandakumar submits that though reasons for suspension would exist in the file, such reasons need not be furnished to the delinquent Govt servant. Note appended to the standard form states : “Paras 2 to 4 should not be inserted in the copy of the order of suspension sent to the officer to be suspended.” It is, therefore, submitted on behalf of the Government that the competent authority is not under obligation to give reasons for suspension. As directed by this Court Mr. Nandakumar has produced the relevant file. As directed by this Court Mr. Nandakumar has produced the relevant file. It has been noticed in the relevant file that it was felt necessary to place the writ petitioner under suspension during the pendency of enquiry not only on the ground that if the petitioner continues in office, evidence might be tempered with but also on the ground that continuance of the writ petitioner during the period of enquiry would seriously affect the discipline of the officers under the Directorate of Health Services, inasmuch as the subject matter of enquiry involves moral turpitude. 7. It is the case of the Government that before the order of suspension was issued, the petitioner had been given opportunity to show cause why disciplinary proceeding should not be initiated against her. It is also the case of the State Government that immediately after the order of suspension was issued, Articles, of charges were furnished and Inquiry Officer was also appointed and the inquiry as such is going on against the writ petitioner. It is, therefore, submitted by Mr. T. Nandakumar that this Court should not interfere with the enquiry initiated against the writ petitioner, inasmuch as there is prima facie case of initiating departmental enquiry. In my view, it cannot be said that reason has not been recorded in relevant Government file for initiating enquiry. As stated above, the enquiry is as regards marriage while spouse is alive and not of leakage of question paper. Mr. Nilamani's submission that the order of suspension has been dug out after ten years just to help the respondent No. 4 is not acceptable inasmuch as clearly there was an opinion of the Vigilance Department that it was a fit case wherein even major penalty could be awarded. 8. It has also been submitted by Mr. Nandakumar, learned Advocate General that by non-disclosure of the reasons for suspension, the petitioner cannot be said to have been handicapped in any way in her fight for her right, inasmuch as since the order of suspension was issued by order and in the name of the Governor. Such order being not appealable, the grievance that reason ought to have been given in the order of suspension cannot be accepted. It may also be stated that in fact order of suspension was issued after the petitioner had been informed of all charges. 9. Such order being not appealable, the grievance that reason ought to have been given in the order of suspension cannot be accepted. It may also be stated that in fact order of suspension was issued after the petitioner had been informed of all charges. 9. In fact it is not the case of the writ petitioner that no departmental enquiry can be initiated against her at all. The writ petitioner is resisting the order of suspension on the ground that enquiry could be carried on even while the writ petitioner continues in office. However, in view of the reason recorded in the relevant file, it appears to me that it cannot be said that there is no reasonable ground warranting suspension of the writ petitioner during the period of enquiry. 10. The order of suspension was issued on 20th March, 1999. May be the enquiry is already nearing completion by now. I have carefully perused the order dated 20th March, 1999 by which the respondent No. 4 has been allowed to hold the charge of the Director of Health. I think Mr. HS Paonam is right in saying that in the absence of a regular Director of Health, some senior officer of the c Department will have to hold the charge of the Head of the Department in the interest of day to day administration.-In my view, the arrangement made in this regard cannot be faulted. 11. I am aware that the subject matter of the enquiry is not a pleasant one. It is also of a limited nature. Therefore, enquiry should not take much time. 12. In the premises aforesaid, this petition is dismissed, but in the fact and circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs. However, in the interest of justice I direct that the enquiry be completed latest by 30th September, 1999.