JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. Th. Ranjit, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H. Samarjit, learned G.A. for the respondents. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming for payment of salary from 01.04.2006 till date and also for quashing of the order dated 29.10.1999 passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Manipur cancelling the appointment of the petitioner. 3. In this case, the petitioner has claimed that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Grade-IV (Peon) under Order No. 1/113/77-RD/XIII dated 28.10.1999 issued by the Director of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Manipur on the recommendation of a Class-IV DPC held on 19.10.1999 and on his appointment the petitioner was posted to the Kakching CD Block and placed on probation for a period of 1 (one) year. The petitioner also claims that the necessary Form No. CPIS-4A as required for entering of the name of the petitioner in the Manipur Government Employees List (MGEL) was furnished to the concerned authority on the basis of which the Employee Identified Number (EIN) of the petitioner was given as EIN: 064568 and accordingly, the Joint Secretary (Finance) also wrote to the authorities for release of salary upto the month of February, 2007. However, the salary of the petitioner has not been paid in spite of the fact that the petitioner had been attending his office and discharging his duties. Accordingly, a writ petition was filed being W.P.(C) No. 438 of 2011 for payment of salary when the respondents in their affidavit-in-reply produced a copy of an order bearing No. 1/113/77-RD/III dated 29.10.1999 cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as Grade-IV (Peon) with immediate effect which the petitioner claims to be a fabricated one. The petitioner states that in the aforesaid writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 438 of 2011 filed by the petitioner was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition and accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order dated 29.10.1999 said to have been issued by the Director, RD&PR, Government of Manipur cancelling the appointment of the petitioner and also for payment of salary from 01.04.2006. 4. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order dated 29.10.1999 said to have been issued by the Director, RD&PR, Government of Manipur cancelling the appointment of the petitioner and also for payment of salary from 01.04.2006. 4. In this writ petition, the respondents in their affidavit-in- opposition had denied that the petitioner was recommended by the DPC held on 19.10.1999 for appointment as Grade-IV (Peon) and it had been also stated that after verification of the petitioner’s service records and other relevant documents, it was confirmed that his service book was manipulated by the then BDO, Kakching CD Block and accordingly, it has been stated that the said cancellation order dated 29.10.1999 was issued after necessary verification. 5. This Court by an order dated 25.10.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No. 611 of 2011 and W.P.(C) No. 20 of 2011 had directed the SP(Vigilance) to conduct an enquiry in a similar case involving appointment in the Grade-IV (Peon) and cancellation of the appointment, to ascertain the circumstances in which the appointment was made and the appointment was cancelled. The relevant portion of the direction issued in the aforesaid writ petitions are reproduced hereinbelow : “(9) This Court also finds that the petitioner claims that he was given salary upto February, 2007 which the authorities also denied. Therefore, whether the petitioner received the salary upto February, 2007 and on what basis the salary was received by the petitioner also needs to be ascertained as it is the case of the respondents that once the appointment of the petitioner as Grade-IV on officiating basis was cancelled by order dated 05.11.1999, steps were taken for recalling of any order for payment of salary. Similarly, under what circumstances, the Form No. CPIS-4 was furnished by the respondent no. 3 to the State Information Officer (NIC) Manipur State Unit on 16.12.2006 also needs to be ascertained though the respondent no. 3 claims that the same was issued inadvertently and due to bonafide mistake and as per wrong information furnished. This Court also has noted as mentioned by the respondents no. 1 and 2 in their affidavit-in-opposition that there is Vigilance Enquiry Case No. 55/MICS/SP-V/2000 before the SP (Vigilance), Manipur vide letter dated 21.07.2000. 3 claims that the same was issued inadvertently and due to bonafide mistake and as per wrong information furnished. This Court also has noted as mentioned by the respondents no. 1 and 2 in their affidavit-in-opposition that there is Vigilance Enquiry Case No. 55/MICS/SP-V/2000 before the SP (Vigilance), Manipur vide letter dated 21.07.2000. (10) Therefore, this Court is of the view that before proceeding further, it needs to be ascertained as to whether the appointment order dated 4th November, 1999 which was issued by Shri Y. Neta Singh, Director, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj, Manipur under Order No. 1/113/77-RD/XIII appointing the petitioner as Grade-IV (Peon) on regular basis and posting him to the Thoubal CD Block, Thoubal and placing him in probation for 2 (two) years is genuine or not as claimed by the petitioner which has been denied by the respondents. Similarly, whether the appointment order dated 04.11.1999 under Order No. 1/113/77-RD/XII issued by Y. Neta Singh, Director, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj, Manipur appointing the petitioner as Grade-IV on officiating basis and posting him at Jiribam CD Block is genuine or not, needs to be determined. It also needs to be ascertained when the cancellation order dated 05.11.1999 was actually issued, which the petitioner claims to be back dated. It also needs to be ascertained as to how the petitioner received his salary upto the month of February, 2007. It also needs to be ascertained under what circumstances the Form No. CPIS-4 was furnished to the State Information Officer (NIC), Manipur State Unit on 16.12.2006 by the respondent no. 3. (11) Since the Vigilance Department is already seized with certain related matters under Vigilance Enquiry Case No. 55/MICS/SP-V/2000 as indicated in the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondents no. 1 and 2 in para no. 4 of the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondents no. 1 and 2, the SP (Vigilance) is directed to submit a detailed report regarding appointment of the petitioner and all the related matters including the specific issues framed by this Court as mentioned above in paras no. 1 and 2 in para no. 4 of the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondents no. 1 and 2, the SP (Vigilance) is directed to submit a detailed report regarding appointment of the petitioner and all the related matters including the specific issues framed by this Court as mentioned above in paras no. 10 of this judgment within a period of 6 (six) months to the Commissioner/Secretary (RD & PR) on the basis of which, the Commissioner/Secretary (RD & PR) will pass appropriate order as regards the genuineness of the order dated 04.11.1999 passed by the Director (RD & PR) as regards appointment of the petitioner and also about the cancellation order dated 05.11.1999 and thereafter pass a speaking order as regards the entitlement of the petitioner and as regards the pay and allowances claimed by the petitioner. (12) From the above, it is quite certain someone has played some mischief which has resulted into filing of these writ petitions and consequential contradictory/inconsistent pleas been taken. It is further therefore directed that the S.P. (Vigilance) will register a criminal case against those persons under appropriate provisions of penal law, who is/are responsible for any wrong doing and prosecute them in accordance with law. (13) Both the petitions are accordingly disposed of.” 6. In this case also, this Court finds that unless the veracity of the appointment order dated 28.10.1999 and the cancellation order dated 29.10.1999 are ascertained, as the contesting parties had taken contradictory stands, it may be premature to pass any order as regards the claim of the petitioner more particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner claims to have been received the salary upto March, 2006 which also requires to be ascertained under what circumstances the petitioner was paid salary upto March, 2006, if the appointment order dated 28.10.1999 was cancelled by the authorities as stated by the respondents. 7. Therefore, this Court also would direct the SP(Vigilance) to make an enquiry as to the genuineness of the appointment order dated 28.10.1999 which is stated to have been issued by the Director, RD & PR appointing the petitioner as a Grade- IV (Peon). 7. Therefore, this Court also would direct the SP(Vigilance) to make an enquiry as to the genuineness of the appointment order dated 28.10.1999 which is stated to have been issued by the Director, RD & PR appointing the petitioner as a Grade- IV (Peon). The SP(Vigilance) will also make an enquiry in respect of the genuineness of the cancellation order dated 29.10.1999 which was issued by the Directorate of RD&PR, Government of Manipur and the circumstances in which Form No. CPIS-4A was issued by the Director, RD&PR, Government of Manipur which is annexed as Annexure-A/5 to this writ petition and also the circumstances in which the petitioner was given salary upto to March, 2006 as claimed by the petitioner in this writ petition. The SP(Vigilance) will make the necessary enquiry into the matter including on the issues mentioned above and submit a report within a period of 6 (six) months from today to the Commissioner/Secretary (RD & PR), Government of Manipur. Thereafter, the Commissioner/Secretary (RD&PR), Government of Manipur will pass a speaking order as regards the pay and allowances claimed by the petitioner. 8. It is further directed that the S.P.(Vigilance) will register a criminal case against those persons who are found to have committed any wrong doing in course of the enquiry under appropriate provisions of penal law and prosecute them in accordance with law. 9. Petition is accordingly, disposed of.