Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 146 (MAN)

Vinay Kumar Singh v. Union of India

2022-08-08

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kh. Samarjit, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been field by the petitioner seeking to quash the impugned Memorandum dated 15.05.2019 and to direct the disciplinary authority to complete the inquiry proceedings within a period of three months, failing which to automatically cancel the Memorandum of Charge dated 15.05.2019. 3. The case of the petitioner is that while he was working as second in command at 172 Bn CRPF, Gahwa, there was an allegation of involvement in a monetary transaction with one civilian. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Tendu Leaf Contractor of Daltonganj, Jharkhand, with an intention to earn interest by lending him an amount of Rs.1 lakh through his wife on 16.12.2015. For that, he was issued with charge memo on 15.05.2019. Upon receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner submitted his written statement on 21.06.2019 and the inquiry was proceeded by recording the statements of the prosecution witness and defence witness. 4. After completion of the inquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report and copy of the same was also furnished to him on 10.1.2021 by the DIG (CR & Gig), CRPF and requested the petitioner to submit a representation within 15 days. On 11.02.2021, the petitioner has submitted his representation to the Director General, CRPF and thereafter, the authority has not completed the disciplinary proceedings till now without any reason. Hence, the petitioner has filed the writ petition to quash the impugned Memorandum dated 15.05.2019 or to direct the respondents to complete the inquiry proceedings with the stipulated time, failing which, the said departmental proceedings may declare as non est. 5. The respondents 1 to 5 filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that Rakesh Kumar Gupta had admitted that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.1 lakh from the petitioner and returned the said sum along with Rs.25,000/- through deposit into the SB Account No.32778843187 of the petitioner on 21.10.2016 which clearly indicates that the petitioner has entered into monetary transaction with Rakesh Gumar Gupta with an intention to earn interest by lending him an amount of Rs.1 lakh through his wife on 16.12.2015 and has received Rs.1,25,000/- in his bank account on 21.10.2016. 6. 6. It is stated that the departmental enquiry has now completed and the same has been sent to the Union Public Service Commission by the Ministry of Home Affairs for its advice on 05.07.2021 and the same is awaited. The filing of the writ petition by the petitioner is pre-matured and preposterous. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Assailing the impugned Memorandum, Mr. M. Devananda, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite direction of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India to conclude the departmental enquiry within 18 months from the date of issuance of charge sheet, without assigning any reason, the disciplinary proceedings are delayed by the respondent authorities. In view of the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for quashing of the impugned Memorandum. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Kh. Samarjit, the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents submitted that pending writ petition certain developments had taken place qua the inquiry proceedings and the UPSC has tendered its advice and after following the due process, the proposal for accepting the advice of the UPSC was submitted to the disciplinary authority and the approval is awaited. He would submit that the advice of the UPSC will be served to the petitioner immediately upon receipt of the approval from the Ministry of Home affairs for submission of representation, if any, against the advice of the UPSC as per the provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. 9. The learned Assistant Solicitor General further submitted that the UPSC which is an autonomous constitutional body took about 11 months time for tendering its advice and the delay is on account of administrative reasons to finalise the enquiry in a fair manner. There is no willful or deliberate delay on the part of the department and the petitioner has not produced any valid grounds for intervening in the process of disciplinary enquiry. 10. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 11. Though the petitioner contended that the charges levelled against the petitioner are fabricated and not supported by any material evidence and in their statements PW5 and PW6 have clearly stated that the instant departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner with mala fide intention, the same are not gone into in the present writ petition. 11. Though the petitioner contended that the charges levelled against the petitioner are fabricated and not supported by any material evidence and in their statements PW5 and PW6 have clearly stated that the instant departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner with mala fide intention, the same are not gone into in the present writ petition. Furthermore, in the prayer itself the petitioner prayed for direction on the disciplinary authority to complete the inquiry proceedings within a stipulated period of three months time. 12. It is apposite to mention that the departmental proceedings was initiated against the petitioner and Memorandum of Article of Charges were issued on 15.05.2019. However, the departmental proceedings has not been concluded for nearly 2 1/2 years. Though the Office Memorandum of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India dated 14.10.2013 stipulates time period of 18 months for conclusion of the departmental enquiry from the date of issuance of the charge memo, the said stipulation has not been followed by the respondent authorities scrupulously. Though finalization of the departmental enquiry involves multiple authorities, including the UPSC, there must be a reasonable time to conclude the disciplinary proceedings. 13. The law is well settled that a delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and monetary loss, when the proceedings are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. 14. However, if this court expresses any opinion on the merits of the charges, it will have a bearing on the disciplinary authority. Therefore, without going to the merits of the charges levelled against the petitioner and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following order: (i) The writ petition is disposed of. (ii) The respondent authorities are directed to complete the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iii) In case, the respondent authorities do not complete the disciplinary proceedings within the time frame indicated above, the petitioner would be entitled to be considered for promotion to higher post, as per his eligibility, ignoring the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. (iv) No costs.