Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 293 (GAU)

Okram Mangi Singh v. State of Manipur and Ors

2005-04-06

T.NANDA KUMAR SINGH

body2005
Heard Mr.Iswarlal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.S.Reisang, learned GA for the respondents. 2. Succint fact of the petitioner's case is that the petitioner was initially appointed as LDC on 31.12.1975 and latter on promoted to the post of UDC (Upper Division Clerk) on16.1.1980. In the year, 1980 he was posted as UDC in the office of the District Veterinary Officer, Thoubal. On 18.9.1995 a complaint was lodged with the Superintendent of Police, Thoubal by the then Director of Veterinary & Animal Husbandary Services, Manipur alleging that during the period from April, 1994 to October, 1994 a huge amount of money amounting to Rs. 10.40 lakhs had been mis-appropriated in the District Veterinary Office, Thoubal, accordingly, a criminal case being FIR No. 468/471/420 IPC and 5 P.C Act had been registered by the Officer-in-charge of Thoubal Police Station against the petitioner and others. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO) took up the said criminal case, i.e. FIR case No. 154(9)95, Thoubal P.S for investigation. 3. While the investigation of the said criminal case i.e. FIR No. 154(9) 95 Thoubal P.S. u/s 468/471/420 IPC and 5 P.C. Act was going on, in respect of the same alleged incident and occurrence in the office of the District Veterinary Officer, Thoubal, a criminal case being FIR No. 2 (4) 96, Vigilance P.S. u/s 409/420/468/471/120-B IPC read with Section 13(2) P.C Act was registered against the petitioner and others by the Vigilance Department. The Vigilance Department also simultaneously investigated the said criminal case, i.e. FIR No. 2(4)96, Vigilance P.S. The officer of the Vigilance P.S. arrested the petitioner and others under the said criminal case,i.e. F.I.R.No.2(4) 96 Vigilance P.S., but, the petitioner was released on bail by the leamed Special Judge, Manipur West vide order dated 4.5.1996. 4. The Director of Veterinary & Animal Husbandary Services, Manipur issued an order being No. G/2/Diary/86-Vety.(pt), dated Imphal the 17.5.1996 for placing the petitioner under suspension, in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. (Annexure-A/7 to the writ petition). Since then the petitioner has been under suspension till date. Even after the lapse of more than 8 (eight) years, the Disciplinary authority neither submitted charge sheet nor taken up further steps for holding disciplinary inquiry which was to be contemplated against the petitioner. 5. (Annexure-A/7 to the writ petition). Since then the petitioner has been under suspension till date. Even after the lapse of more than 8 (eight) years, the Disciplinary authority neither submitted charge sheet nor taken up further steps for holding disciplinary inquiry which was to be contemplated against the petitioner. 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Thoubal after completing the investigation of the said criminal case, i.e. FIR No. 154(9)95, Thoubal P.S. submitted the final report dated 7.2.1998 u/s 173 Cr.P.C .in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate praying for closing the case on the ground of insufficient evidence against the petitioner. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoubal by his order dated 23.11.1998 passed in Cril Misc.Case No. 87/98 closed the said criminal case i.e. FIR No. 154(9)95 Thoubal P.S against the petitioner and others on the ground of insufficient evidence and they were discharged. But the Vigilance Department after investigating the said criminal case i.e. FIR No. 2(4)96 Vigilance P.S u/ s 409/420/468/471-120-B IPC had submitted charge sheet. On submission of charge sheet the Special Judge, Manipur West by registering criminal case S.T No. 13/99 against the petitioner and others, had considered as to whether cognizance could be taken on the basis of the said charge sheet or not. After considering the said charge sheet, learned Special Judge, Manipur West passed order dated 30.6.2004 for closing the said S.T.case no.13/99 for the reasons that no cognizance could be taken against the accused person, i.e. the petitioner and others on the basis of the charge sheet submitted by an incompetent Police Officer for the offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. But under the said order dated 30.6.2004 of learned Special Judge, Manipur West, the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance had been asked to take steps for investigating the case afresh by a competent Police Officer but till today the S.P.,Vigilance has not yet submitted charge sheet against the petitioner and others. 6. But under the said order dated 30.6.2004 of learned Special Judge, Manipur West, the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance had been asked to take steps for investigating the case afresh by a competent Police Officer but till today the S.P.,Vigilance has not yet submitted charge sheet against the petitioner and others. 6. By this writ petition, the petitioner is praying for quashing the said suspension order dated 17.5.1996 (Annexure-A/7 to the writ petition) on the ground that; (1) Even after the lapse of more than 8(eight) years, the Disciplinary authority has failed to frame charge against the petitioner; and also (2) The said criminal case, i.e. FIR No. 2(4) 96 Vigilance Police Station is still pending as the authority concerned does not take up necessary steps for speedy investigation and for speedy trial of the said criminal case. 7. I t is now well settled that speedy trial is a component of personal liberty. Reference may be made to Kartar Singh Vs State of Punjab reported in JT (1994) 2 SC 423. The Apex Court in Supreme Court Advocates on record Assn & Anr Vs Union of India reported in 1994 SC 268 held that; speedy justice is a fundamental right, as an ingredient of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and provision of speedy justice is an obligation of the State, for which otherwise the operation of the legal system would not promote "justice which is assured in the preamble of the Constitution". In the present case, the criminal case i.e. FIR No. 2(4)96 Vigilance P.S. which was registered about 9 (nine) years ago against the petitioner and others are still pending for no ault of the petitioner. But by taking undue advantage of pendency of the said criminal case i.e. FIR case No. 2(4)96 Vigilance P.S, the Director of Veterinary and Animal Husbandary, Manipur does not take up any action for revocation of the said suspension order dated 17.5.96 (Annexure-A/7 to the writ petition). 8. In the case of K.Sukhendar Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Reported in (1999) 6 SCC 257 , the appellant was placed under suspension on 6.2.97 by an order passed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh in contemplation of a disciplinary proceedings against him on his alleged involvement in a criminal case No. 327/96 registered uls 468/471 etc etc by Anakapali town Police Station. Reported in (1999) 6 SCC 257 , the appellant was placed under suspension on 6.2.97 by an order passed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh in contemplation of a disciplinary proceedings against him on his alleged involvement in a criminal case No. 327/96 registered uls 468/471 etc etc by Anakapali town Police Station. But the investigation of the said criminal case was not completed for a long time, as such the appellant was continued to be placed under suspension. The Apex Court in Sukhendar Reddy (supra) held that as there was uncertainty as to when the investigation can be completed and that being so, applicant against whom disciplinary proceedings were contemplated cannot be kept under suspension for an indefinite period and Govemment also cannot be permitted to resort to selective suspension. Para-6 and 7 of the SCC in Sukhendar Reddy (supra) are quoted hereunder: "6. The appellant was placed under suspension on 6.2.1997 by an order passed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh under sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 till the completion of the disciplinary proceedings against him. This order was subsequently replaced by another order passed on 12.3.1997, in which it was clearly spelt out that disciplinary proceedings against the appellant were not at all contemplated, but since he was involved in Crime Case No. 327 of 1996 registered under Sections 468, 471 etc by Anakapalli Town Police Station, he was being placed under suspension. This matter is still under investigation by the CID and charge-sheet has not yet been filed in the case. 7. Another vital fact which has come on record is that in the criminal case a number of senior IAS Officers, even senior to the appellant, may be found involved, but nothing positive or definite can be said as yet as the investigation is likely to take time. The matter is pending with the police since 1.12.1996 when the FIR was lodged at Anakapalli Town Police Station. The investigation has not been completed although about two-and-a-half years have passed. We do not know how long it will take to complete the investigation. The matter is pending with the police since 1.12.1996 when the FIR was lodged at Anakapalli Town Police Station. The investigation has not been completed although about two-and-a-half years have passed. We do not know how long it will take to complete the investigation. That being so, the officer of the rank of the appellant, against whom it has now come out that the disciplinary proceedings are not contemplated, cannot be kept under suspension for an indefinite period, particularly in a situation where many more senior officers may ultimately be found involved, but the appellant alone has been placed under suspension. The Govemment cannot be permitted to resort to selective suspension. It cannot be permitted toplace an officer under suspension just to exhibit and feign that action against the officers, irrespective of their high status in the service hierarchy, would be taken." 8. The Division Bench of this Court in Md.Sahabuddin Vs State of Assam & Others reported in (1990) 1 GLR 276 held that; "Without entering into the controversy at this stage, we do think that prolonged suspension for more than three years of the petitioner from service without any further action having been taken in the matter, was neither proper nor justified. Suspension from service is a very serious matter and should be for as minimum period as may only be necessary. A prolonged suspension without any justifiable cause is not only wastage of human resources of the organization which has to pay the subsistence allowance etc without any return. We find absolutely no reason to continue the suspension of the petitioner." The ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Md.Sahabuddin (supra) has been followed by this Court in Jinna Abdur Rahim Vs State of Assam reported in 2002 (3) GLT 498 and held that: " The petitioner being a LP School teacher, has been put under suspension for more than four and half years without any initiation of disciplinary proceedings which, seems to be unjustified and improper. Such indefinite suspension of the petitioner has definitely come to the petitioner as mental torment resulting in his grave penury and scourge in maintaining the livelihood of his family including himself. I am in respectful agreement with the decision of this court in the said two cases, i.e. Md.Sahabuddin (supra) and Jinna Abdur Rahim (supra). 9. Such indefinite suspension of the petitioner has definitely come to the petitioner as mental torment resulting in his grave penury and scourge in maintaining the livelihood of his family including himself. I am in respectful agreement with the decision of this court in the said two cases, i.e. Md.Sahabuddin (supra) and Jinna Abdur Rahim (supra). 9. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Allahabad Bank & Anr Vs Deepak Kumar Bhola reported in (1997) 4 SCC 1 for justifying action of the respondents for continuing suspension of the petitioner for a period of more than eight years only on the ground that the investigation of the said criminal case against the petitioner was/is not yet completed and also that the Disciplinary Authority could not frame charges for Disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for the last more than eight years. 10. From careful perusal of Allahabad Bank & Anr (supra) it is clear that, in that case the Apex Court did not discussed the point as to whether or not suspension for an indefinite period because of incompletion of investigation of the criminal case and incompletion of departmental inquiry against the delinquent was justified. In that case, the suspension order was set aside by the High Court on merit of the case and the Apex Court, interfered the order of High Court for setting aside the suspension order on merit. But in the present case this Court is not considering merit of the case for suspension of the petitioner but only considering the suspension of the petitioner for more than eight years only because of pendency of criminal case against the petitioner and non contemplation of Disciplinary Proceedings against the petitioner is justified or not. Such being the situation, decision of the Apex Court in Allahabad Bank (supra) shall not help the case of learned Government Advocate. 11. As stated above, neither departmental proceedings nor criminal case against the petitioner are finalized till date even after a lapse of more than eight years. It is also not known as to when the said investigation, and trial of the said case,i.e. F.I.R. No. 2(4)96 V.P.S. U/S 409/468/471/120-B IPC and 13(2) P.C. Act shall be completed and also as to when the disciplinary proceeding, said to be contemplated against the petitioner shall be completed. It is also not known as to when the said investigation, and trial of the said case,i.e. F.I.R. No. 2(4)96 V.P.S. U/S 409/468/471/120-B IPC and 13(2) P.C. Act shall be completed and also as to when the disciplinary proceeding, said to be contemplated against the petitioner shall be completed. "Suspension" is not a punishment but an administrative measure to facilitate the initiation and completion of the disciplinary proceeding against the employee. It is obligatory on the part of the employer to exercise this administrative power fairly and justly. Therefore, placing the petitioner under suspension for an indefinite period is not permissible. 12. For the reasons discussed above, the suspension order, dated 17.5.1996 is hereby quashed and respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this judgment & order. However, it is made clear that it is upto the respondents to reinstate the petitioner without prejudicing the disciplinary proceeding which is yet to be contemplated against the petitioner or/subject to the final outcome of the said criminal case. Writ petition is allowed to the extent mentioned above. No order as to costs.