Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 170 (MAN)

Mutum Kumarjit Singh v. State of Manipur

2022-08-26

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The writ petition has been filed to quash the order dated 09.11.2017 issued by the Chief Secretary (DP), the order dated 19.6.2018 issued by the Under Secretary (Finance/PIC) and also the notice dated 19.10.2018 issued by the Under Secretary (Finance/PIC), including the impugned letter dated 27.11.2019 issued by the Under Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department. 2. Brief facts are as follows: The petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Jemadar and after serving about 10 years to the said post, he was promoted to the post of Subedar and on the recommendation of the DPC, he was further promoted to the post of Manipur Police Grade-II. On 29.10.2014, the petitioner was promoted to the post of MPS Grade-I and he was transferred and posted to the post of C.O./6th IRB on in-charge basis on 29.7.2020 and since then, he is holding the said post of C.O./6th IRB at Pangei. While so working, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 1.9.2017 in connection with the irregularities and lapses in the procurement of web equipment by Manipur Police i.e. in the supply of Leather Belt (Black) and AK Sling and thereafter, the suspension was revoked on 30.11.2017. 2.1. On 9.11.2017, a Memorandum enclosing Articles of Charges was issued for holding departmental enquiry against the petitioner and two other officers and the petitioner had also submitted his statement of defence on 15.11.2017 and the departmental proceedings has already been completed. The enquiry report has also been submitted by the Enquiry Officer, however, the disciplinary authority have not given any decision in connection with the said departmental enquiry without assigning any reason. 2.2. On 19.6.2018, a notice has been issued to the petitioner under Rule 9(7) of the Manipur Public Servants' Personal Liability Rules, 2006 directing him to submit his written statement of defence within 15 days. On 19.10.2018, a notice for constitution of Higher Power Committee on the charges against the petitioner and two other officers was intimated and soon after receiving the notice dated 19.10.2018, the petitioner submitted his written objection to the High Power Committee on 29.10.2018 denying the allegations for holding parallel inquiry. 2.3. The supplier, namely M/s.Md. On 19.10.2018, a notice for constitution of Higher Power Committee on the charges against the petitioner and two other officers was intimated and soon after receiving the notice dated 19.10.2018, the petitioner submitted his written objection to the High Power Committee on 29.10.2018 denying the allegations for holding parallel inquiry. 2.3. The supplier, namely M/s.Md. AbdulGani Khan, has challenged the order dated 9.6.2017 blacklisting his firm in connection with the supply of the uniform and web equipment before this Court in W.P.(C) No.444 of 2017 and by the order dated 31.10.2017, this Court quashed the order dated 9.6.2017. An FIR has also been registered against the supplier Md. Abdul Gani Khan being FIR No.174(6)2017 under Sections 406, 409, 420 IPC and he was arrested and thereafter released on bail. The supplier had also filed quash petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being Cril. Petn. No.2 of 2018 before this Court for quashing of the aforesaid FIR and this Court by the order dated 1.8.2019 allowed the said criminal petition, thereby quashing the FIR. As against the order passed in W.P.No.444 of 2017 and Cril. Petn. No.2 of 2018, no appeal has been filed by the competent authority. 2.4. The departmental proceedings has been challenged by Faomei Gonglin, IPS before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal after hearing the parties passed final order directing to conclude the departmental proceedings against the said IPS officer within three months, failing which the departmental proceeding shall stand abated and the same was complied with by the order dated 29.4.2021 thereby closing the departmental enquiry proceedings against Faumei Gonglin. As such the petitioner being a similarly situated person is also entitled to revoke his departmental enquiry proceedings so as to enable him to get his promotion to the next higher post as all the eligible persons including his juniors have been promoted to the next higher post of MPS Junior Administrative Grade (Non-Functional) by an order dated 31.3.2021, thereby seriously affecting his rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 2.5. Similarly situated person, namely S.Manglemjao Singh has also filed O.A.No.042/00338 of 2019 before the Tribunal challenging the departmental enquiry proceedings and the Tribunal has simply passed an order to conclude the departmental enquiry proceedings within a period of two months by the order dated 4.11.2019. 2.5. Similarly situated person, namely S.Manglemjao Singh has also filed O.A.No.042/00338 of 2019 before the Tribunal challenging the departmental enquiry proceedings and the Tribunal has simply passed an order to conclude the departmental enquiry proceedings within a period of two months by the order dated 4.11.2019. Aggrieved by the order dated 4.11.2019, S.Manglemjao Singh preferred W.P.(C)No.999 of 2019 before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court by the order dated 12.2.2021 quashed the order of the Tribunal dated 4.11.2019 along with order dated 27.2.2018 issued by the Chief Secretary (DP) thereby directed the respondents to release the pensionary benefits to him within a period of three months. Since compliance of the order was not made, Contempt Case No.60 of 2021 was filed. 2.6. The petitioner has also filed W.P.(C) No.421 of 2021 praying to extend the benefit given to the Faomei Gonglin as he is similarly situated person. While filing counter in W.P.(C) No.421 of 2021, the petitioner came to know that the enquiry report as against the petitioner and two other officers was submitted on 29.8.2019 for taking an appropriate action. The petitioner also reliably learned that the charges levelled against the three officers were not proved and being unsatisfied, the Under Secretary wrote a letter on 27.11.2019 to the Director (Vigilance & Anti-Corruption) Department, Manipur for doing further vigilance enquiry against the officers involved in the irregularities. On 2.8.2021, the petitioner submitted a representation thereby requesting to provide copy of the enquiry report submitted by the Additional Chief Secretary (DP), however, the same has not been furnished till date. Aggrieved by the aforesaid inaction of the competent authority and seeking to extend the similar benefit as given to the similarly situated person Faomei Gonglin, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in this writ petition. However, while disposing of W.P.(C) No.421 of 2021, this Court directed the learned Government Advocate to rely on the counter filed in W.P.No.421 of 2021 in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the counter affidavit filed W.P. (C) No.421 of 2021 has been called for to this writ petition. 4. However, while disposing of W.P.(C) No.421 of 2021, this Court directed the learned Government Advocate to rely on the counter filed in W.P.No.421 of 2021 in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the counter affidavit filed W.P. (C) No.421 of 2021 has been called for to this writ petition. 4. In the counter-affidavit, respondent Nos.1 and 2 stated as under: By the impugned Memorandum dated 9.11.2017, the Department of Personnel, Government of Manipur, initiated a departmental enquiry against the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 in connection with the alleged irregularities in the procurement of leather belts (black) in the Manipur Police Department. 4.1. It is stated that the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.444 of 2017 filed by the supplier M/s.Md. Abdul Gani Khan was allowed by this Court and set aside the order on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given to him before issuance of the order of blacklisting, however, this Court granted liberty to the State to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. It is further stated that this Court quashed the FIR in Cril. Petn. No.2 of 2018 on the ground that the issue involved in the case was purely civil in nature and as such cannot be given a colour of criminal offence as the dispute arose out the contract agreement of supply. The departmental enquiry instituted against Faumei Gonglin, IPS in connection with the alleged irregularities was closed in compliance of the order of the Tribunal dated 20.11.2020. Though the inquiring authority submitted his report on 29.8.2019, the same was not accepted and the matter was referred to the Vigilance Department and the report is still awaited. 4.2. It is stated that the departmental enquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner are governed by CCS (CCA) Rules, while the case of Faomei Gonglin, IPS are governed by All India Service Rules and therefore, they cannot be similarly situated. Further, the petitioner has not challenged the departmental enquiry proceedings against him in the writ petition and also having failed to show that he made a clear demand of his legal rights to the authority and the refusal of the said demand by the authority, the present writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Assailing the impugned orders, Mr. 5. Assailing the impugned orders, Mr. N. Jotendro, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the disciplinary proceedings was initiated in connection with the procurement of web equipment by Manipur Police i.e. in the supply of leather belt (black) and AK sling against the petitioner along with two incumbents, namely, Manglemjao, IPS (retd.), the then IGP (Ops) and Faoemei Gonglin, IPS. He would submit that as far as the other two officers, namely Manglemjao and Faoemei Gonglin are concerned, Manglemjao, IPS has filed W.P.(C) No.999 of 2019 against the order passed by the Tribunal dated 4.11.2019 in O.A.No.42/00338 of 2019 thereby directing to complete the departmental enquiry within a period of two months and by the judgment dated 12.02.2021, the Division Bench of this Court set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 4.11.2019 and quashed the order dated 27.2.2018 issued by the Chief Secretary (DP) for initiating departmental enquiry proceedings and also directed the respondents to release the pension and other pensionary benefits to him. 6. He further submitted that when Faoemei Gonglin, IPS challenged the departmental enquiry proceedings before the Tribunal, the Tribunal by an order dated 20.11.2020 directed to conclude the departmental proceedings against the said officer within a period of three months failing which the departmental proceedings shall stand abated. In compliance, the competent authority had passed an order dated 29.4.2021 thereby closing the departmental enquiry proceedings against Faoemei Gonglin, IPS and thereafter, he was given further promotion. 7. The learned counsel further submitted that as similarly situated officers have already been set free from the departmental enquiry on the same allegation of charges levelled against the petitioner and the enquiring authority has submitted a joint enquiry report to the effect that the charges levelled against the petitioner and other two officers were not proved. Therefore, the further vigilance enquiry against the officers is arbitrary and the same is liable to be set aside. 8. The learned senior counsel urged that the further promotion of the petitioner has been withheld by the competent authority only on the ground of non-completion of the departmental enquiry proceedings against him, including the enquiry before the High Power Committee. In fact, the petitioner is similarly situated with that of Faomei Gonglin, IPS and therefore the petitioner is also entitled to get the similar benefit. 9. Per contra, Mr. In fact, the petitioner is similarly situated with that of Faomei Gonglin, IPS and therefore the petitioner is also entitled to get the similar benefit. 9. Per contra, Mr. H. Samarjit, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the question of abating of the departmental enquiry proceedings does not arise as the petitioner has failed to point out under which provision of rule of the CCS (CCA) Rules, the proceedings against him should be abated. Since this Court has granted liberty to the State authority to proceed in accordance with law in W.P.(C) No.999 of 2019, the further proceedings against the petitioner was taken. 10. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the departmental enquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner are governed by CCS (CCA) Rules while the case of Faoemei Gonglin, IPS are governed by All India Service Rules and therefore, they cannot be similarly situated as they are governed by different Rules. Thus, the question of revoking the departmental enquiry against the petitioner does not arise. Therefore, a prayer is made to dismiss the writ petition. 11. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 12. It appears that while the petitioner was working as Addl. SP (Ops), Imphal East, he was placed under suspension on 1.9.2017 for the alleged irregularities and lapses in the procurement of web equipment by Manipur Police i.e. in the supply of leather belt (black) and AK sling. Subsequently, on 30.11.2017, the suspension was revoked without prejudice to the departmental enquiry against him. On 09.11.2017, the petitioner was issued with Articles of Charges. The Article of Charges against the petitioner reads thus: 'That the said Shri M. Kumarjit Singh, MPS while discharging as Commandant 2nd MR in the year 2013-14 was nominated as a Line Committee Member for inspection and checking of the supplied items of uniform and equipment vide Order No.PR-13/14/2014- PHQ dated 30th April, 2014 (Annexure-1/A). That during the aforesaid period and while functioning as Line Committee Member, 2 (two) copies of Proceeding of the Line Committee meeting held on 23.06.2014 and 20.08.2014 of checking Uniforms and Web Equipments for 7 (seven) and 4 (four) items supplied by M/s.Md. That during the aforesaid period and while functioning as Line Committee Member, 2 (two) copies of Proceeding of the Line Committee meeting held on 23.06.2014 and 20.08.2014 of checking Uniforms and Web Equipments for 7 (seven) and 4 (four) items supplied by M/s.Md. Abdul Gani Khan, Masjib Road, Imphal was submitted to the then DGP mentioning that the items received are as per specification of the sample furnished at the time of tender vide letter No.C-1/1/14-IGP (Ops)/3308 dated 23.06.2014 (Annexure-2/A) and letter No.C- 1/1/2014-1GP (Ops)/4400 dated 20.08.2014 (Annexure-3/A). It is evident that neither specifications as indicated in the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) as per the approved samples have not been adhered by the suppliers in case of Leather Belt (Black) with crest nor the Line Committee Member failed to check of the materials supplied by the Suppliers both in terms of quality and quantity. Thus, the Charged Officer has failed to maintain absolute integrity while discharging his duty and unbecoming of a Govt. servant which is in violation of Rule 3(1)(i) & (iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964. That, Shri M.Kumarjit Singh, MPS has shown utter negligence while discharging his duty as the Member of the Line committee i.e. negligence to check the quality of products supplied by the suppliers. It is laid that the job nature of a Line Committee is critical and sensitive. As a Member of the Line Committee, it is mandated to do an exhaustive checking of the materials supplied by the Suppliers both in terms of quality and quantity. There is also a lapse and irregularity on the part of Shri M.Kumarjit Singh, MPS. This is against Rule 2(i) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.' 13. There is no dispute that upon receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner had submitted his statement of defence and departmental enquiry commenced and the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report to the disciplinary authority. 14. It appears that on 19.6.2018, the Under Secretary (Finance/ PIC) issued notice under Rule 9(7) of the Manipur Public Servants Personal Liability Rules, 2006 directing the petitioner to submit his written statement before the Principal Secretary, Department of Finance/PIC. 14. It appears that on 19.6.2018, the Under Secretary (Finance/ PIC) issued notice under Rule 9(7) of the Manipur Public Servants Personal Liability Rules, 2006 directing the petitioner to submit his written statement before the Principal Secretary, Department of Finance/PIC. It also appears that in continuation of the order dated 19.6.2018, the Under Secretary (Finance/PIC) has issued a notice on 19.10.2018 for constitution of High Power Committee to meet on 29.10.2018 at 2.30 p.m. qua the charges of procurement and supply of web equipment in the year 2013-14 against the petitioner and two other officers, namely Manglemjao, retired IAS and Faoemei Gonglin, IPS. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner has submitted his written objection to the High Power Committee denying the allegations for holding parallel inquiry. 15. It appears that as against the action initiated against Faoemei Gonglin, IPS, he has filed O.A.No.042/03325/2018 before the CAT, Guwahati Bench. By the order dated 20.11.2020, the Tribunal allowed the said OA and the operative portion of the order reads thus: '9. In view of the above ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the undisputed fact that no a single hearing has taken place since the issuance of the impugned memorandum of charges, we deem it fit and proper to direct the respondents to conclude the departmental proceeding initiated against the applicant vide memorandum of charges dated 15.04.2018 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order positively, failing which the said departmental proceeding will stand abated. Ordered accordingly.' 16. Thereafter, on 29.04.2021, the Under Secretary (DP), closed the departmental enquiry initiated against Faumei Gonglin, IPS in connection with the alleged irregularities in the procurement of leather belt (black) with immediate effect. While issuing the order dated 29.04.2021, it has been stated that the charges levelled against the officer could not be proved. The operative portion of the order dated 29.4.2021 reads thus: '5. Now, therefore taking into account all facts and circumstances and in compliance of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench vide order dated 20.11.2020 passed in OA.No.04/00421/2018, the Governor of Manipur, is pleased to closed the departmental enquiry instructed against Shri Faumei Gonglin, IPS (MA:04) now SP/Railways, Manipur in connection with alleged irregularities in the procurement of leather belt (black) with immediate effect.' 17. The other officer, namely Manglemjao Singh, IAS also filed OA before the Tribunal challenging the departmental enquiry and the Tribunal by the order dated 4.11.2019 passed an order directing the authority concerned to conclude the departmental enquiry within a period of two months. Aggrieved by the said order, Manglemjao Singh has filed W.P.(C) No.999 of 2019 before this Court and the Division Bench by the judgment dated 12.2.2021 quashed the order dated 4.11.2019 along with the order dated 27.2.2018 issued by the Chief Secretary (DP) thereby initiating disciplinary proceedings against the said officer. The operative portion of the judgment reads thus: '[12] In view of the above and for the reason stated hereinabove, the writ petition stands allowed with the following directions: (a) The order dated 04.11.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in OA No.040/00338/2019 is quashed and set aside. (b) The order dated 27.02.2018 issued by the Chief Secretary (DP), Government and the enquiry proceedings initiated pursuant thereto, are quashed and set aside. (c) The respondents are directed to release the pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner within three months from today after deducting any amount, if already paid to the petitioner. There shall no order as to costs.' Thus, from the above, it is clear that the disciplinary proceedings against Manglemjao Singh was closed while the disciplinary proceedings against Faumei Gonglin abated. 18. At this juncture, it is to be pointed out that challenging the order of blacklisting, the supplier of uniform and web equipment, namely M/s.MD Abdul Gani Khan, Proprietor, has filed W.P.(C) No.444 of 2017 before this Court. By the order dated 31.10.2017, the said writ petition was allowed thereby quashing the order dated 9.6.2017 blacklisting the firm. It is seen that an FIR has also been lodged against the supplier and the supplier had challenged the same by filing quash petition being Cril. Petn. No.2 of 2018. By the order dated 1.8.2019, the said quash petition was allowed by this Court. From the above, it is clear that the supplier was also set free from the allegations levelled against him by way of judicial pronouncement. 19. Since the charge against similarly situated officer, namely, Faomei Gonglin, IPS was abated, seeking the same benefit to be extended in the case of the petitioner, the petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.421 of 2021 before this Court. 19. Since the charge against similarly situated officer, namely, Faomei Gonglin, IPS was abated, seeking the same benefit to be extended in the case of the petitioner, the petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.421 of 2021 before this Court. When the said writ petition was taken up for hearing, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh one, if so advised. During the course of hearing, the learned Government Advocate has also sought permission of the Court to rely upon the counter filed in W.P.(C) No.421 of 2021 at the time of hearing of the present writ petition. Recording the said submissions, this Court passed the following order: 'In view of the submissions made hereinabove, the present writ petition is disposed of as being withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh one, if so advised. However, registry is directed to list the present writ petition along with WP(C) No.486 of 2021 so as to enable the learned Government Advocate to relied on the counter affidavit of the respondents filed in connection with the present case at the time of hearing of the writ petition No.486 of 2021.' 20. It is pertinent to point out that as against the three sets of judicial orders, the respondent authorities have not filed any appeal and the said orders are allowed to attain finality. That apart, pursuant to the aforesaid order, the two officers have also been given the benefits which they have sought. 21. Highlighting the aforesaid orders, the petitioner contend that since the petitioner is also similarly situated with that of the aforesaid two incumbents, particularly the officer Faomei Gonglin, initiation of departmental enquiry against the petitioner is liable to be set aside. 22. As stated supra, no specific counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent authorities in this writ petition. However, they have been permitted to rely on the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.421 of 2021 while dismissing it as withdrawn on 19.1.2022. On a perusal of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the Department of Personnel vide order dated 29.4.2021 closed the departmental enquiry instituted against Faumei Gonglin in connection with the alleged irregularities in the procurement of leather belt (black) in compliance of the order of the CAT dated 20.11.2020. 23. On a perusal of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the Department of Personnel vide order dated 29.4.2021 closed the departmental enquiry instituted against Faumei Gonglin in connection with the alleged irregularities in the procurement of leather belt (black) in compliance of the order of the CAT dated 20.11.2020. 23. According to the respondent authorities, the petitioner cannot plead for similarity with the officer, namely, Faomei Gonglin, as the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner are governed by CCS (CCA) Rules, while the case of Faomei Gonglin is governed by All India Service Rules. 24. At this juncture, it is to be pointed out that when irregularities have been alleged, the departmental enquiry should be common whether the officers involved are All India Service officers or State Level officers. On a perusal of records, it is seen that a joint/common proceedings have been held in respect of all three charged officers. The charge against Manglemjao Singh, IPS was that while working as IGP (Zone- III) in the year 2013-14 he was nominated as Chairman of Line Committee for inspection and checking of supplied items of uniform and web equipment. As a Chairman of the Line Committee, it is mandate to do an exhaustive checking of the materials supplied by the suppliers. However, there is lapse and irregularity on his part. 25. The charge against Faumei Gonglin, IPS is that the said officer while discharging duty as Commandant 2nd MR in the year 2013-14 was nominated as Line Committee Member for inspection and checking of the supplied items of uniforms and equipment. As a Member of the Line Committee, it was mandated to do an exhaustive checking of the materials supplied. However, there is lapse and irregularity on his part. 26. The charge against the present petitioner Kumarjit Singh, MPS is that while discharging duty as Commandant 2nd MR in the year 2013-14 he was nominated as a Line Committee Member for inspection and checking of the supplied items of uniforms. The said officer has shown utter negligence while discharging his duty as the Member of the Line Committee. Therefore, there is a lapse and irregularity on the part of the petitioner. 27. The Enquiry Officer, after completing the enquiry has submitted his report on 29.8.2019 to the Special Secretary (DP) that the Articles of Charges are not proved against all three officers. Therefore, there is a lapse and irregularity on the part of the petitioner. 27. The Enquiry Officer, after completing the enquiry has submitted his report on 29.8.2019 to the Special Secretary (DP) that the Articles of Charges are not proved against all three officers. The operative portion of the enquiry report reads thus: '25. To sum up, for reasons cited at the above paras, I find that the Article of Charge vide Order No.10/1/2016-IPS/DP(Pt) dated 27.2.2018 in respect of Shri S.Manglemjao Singh IPS; Order No.10/1/2017-IPS/DP dated 30.10.2017 in respect of Shri Faumei Gonglin IPS and Order No.19/3/2017-MPS/DP dated 9.11.2017 in respect of Shri M.Kumarjit Singh MPS are not proved.' 28. As could be seen from the enquiry report, this Court finds that the finding of the Enquiry Officer in respect of the charges levelled against the three officers is based on the documents exhibited and the statements of the prosecution and defence witnesses. However, the disciplinary authority has not accepted the enquiry report and the matter was referred to the Vigilance Department. 29. Though the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report on 29.08.2019, the disciplinary authority after waiting for two months, on 27.11.2019 forwarded the report of the Enquiry Officer to the fourth respondent - Director (Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Department) for further vigilance enquiry against the officers involved in the irregularities. 30. No such reason warranting vigilance enquiry has been stated in the letter dated 27.11.2019 and how the disciplinary authority came to the conclusion for vigilance enquiry has also been silent in the said letter. Nothing has been produced before this Court to show further vigilance enquiry in the matter. In fact, the letter dated 27.11.2019 forwarding the Enquiry Report to the Vigilance Department for further enquiry is without any authority. Further, the respondent authorities have failed to show the progress of the said letter dated 27.11.2019. The Articles of Charges in respect of the petitioner was given on 9.11.2017 and after concluding the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 29.8.2019. Nearly two years have taken for completion of the enquiry. 31. Further, the respondent authorities have failed to show the progress of the said letter dated 27.11.2019. The Articles of Charges in respect of the petitioner was given on 9.11.2017 and after concluding the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 29.8.2019. Nearly two years have taken for completion of the enquiry. 31. When charge against the similarly situated officer namely Faumei Gonglin, who was also the then Member of the Line Committee, was abated way back on 29.4.2021 and he was given further promotion to the post of DIGP, the withholding of further promotion of the petitioner by citing the non-exoneration from the alleged irregularities is unaccepted, in view of the report of the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, this Court is of the view that since the charge against the similarly situated officer, namely Faomei Gonglin, IPS, has already been abated, the same benefit ought to have been extended to the case of the petitioner also for the reason that at the relevant point of time both the petitioner and Faomei Gonglin were functioning as Line Committee Members. Setting free by one Line Committee Member and levelling charge against the other without any proof that too when the Enquiry Officer held that charge was not proved, initiation of action against the petitioner is arbitrary. After the report of the Enquiry Officer that the charges against the three officers are not proved and under the guise of further vigilance enquiry, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 32. In Prem Nath Ball v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and another, (2015) 16 SCC 415 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: '33. Keeping these factors in mind, we are of the considered opinion that every employer (whether State or private) must make sincere endeavor to conclude the departmental enquiry proceedings once initiated against the delinquent employee within a reasonable time by giving priority to such proceedings and as far as possible it should be concluded within six months as an outer limit. Where it is not possible for the employer to conclude due to certain unavoidable causes arising in the proceedings within the time frame then efforts should be made to conclude within reasonably extended period depending upon the course and the nature of inquiry but not more than a year.' 33. Where it is not possible for the employer to conclude due to certain unavoidable causes arising in the proceedings within the time frame then efforts should be made to conclude within reasonably extended period depending upon the course and the nature of inquiry but not more than a year.' 33. As stated supra, the power of the disciplinary authority in forwarding the enquiry report to the Vigilance Department for further enquiry against the officers has not been established. No piece of material has been produced by the respondent authorities about the progress made by the Vigilance Department. This Court is citing the aforesaid for the reason that keeping the enquiry years together, the delinquent cannot be suffered or prejudiced. 34. For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the view that the impugned Memorandum of Articles of Charges dated 9.11.2017 along with the order dated 19.6.2018 and the notice dated 19.10.2018, including the letter dated 27.11.2019, in respect of the petitioner are liable to be set aside, as the charges against the similarly situated officers have been abated and closed respectively. 35. In the result, (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned Memorandum dated 09.11.2017 issued by the first respondent along with the impugned order dated 19.6.2018 issued by the second respondent and also the notice dated 19.10.2018 issued by the Under Secretary, Finance/PIC, including the impugned letter dated 27.11.2019 addressed by the second respondent in respect of the petitioner are quashed. (iii) No costs.