JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. S. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. Bendangwapang, learned Standing Counself or the CBI and Mr. E. T. Phom, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent Nos. 5, 6 & 7. 2. In this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - Shri Sandeep M. Tamgadge, Additional Director General of Police (Administration), PHQ, Kohima, Nagaland has put to challenge the letter, dated 04.03.2020, issued by the Superintendent of Police, CBI to the Chief Secretary, Government of Nagaland referring to its earlier letter No.26011/55/2018-IPS-II, dated 20.02.2020, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. 3. It is to be noted here that vide the impugned letter, dated 04.03.2020, the Superintendent of Police, CBI, AC-III, New Delhi informed the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Civil Secretariat, Kohima that the Ministry of Home Affairs, vide letter No.26011/55/2018-IPS-II, dated 20.02.2020 has informed that:- (1) The CBI recommendation for departmental action against charged officer vis. Shri Sandeep M. Tamgadge, the then Superintendent of Police, CBI, AC-III, New Delhi was forwarded to CVC for its first stage advice; (2) However, the CVC has observed that the version/explanation of charged officer has not been obtained on the charges/misconduct particularly at Sl. No. (iii) to (v) made against him and further advised to obtain the same for the aforesaid purpose; and (3) It is, therefore, requested that the version/explanation of the charged officer on the charges made against him may be taken within the 30 days of receipt of communication and the same may be forwarded to CBI for further necessary action; 4. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under:- “The petitioner is an IPS Officer of the batch 2001 of Nagaland cadre and presently serving as the Addl. Director General of Police (Administration) at PHQ, Kohima, Nagaland. He was on deputation in Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). On 08.11.2011, he was posted as Superintendent of Police (SP), Special Crime Branch, CBI, Mumbai in the month of November, 2011. On 08.10.2012, he was posted at Nagpur as Head of Branch (HoB)/SP, Anti-Corruption Branch and he worked in that capacity till May, 2013. He was on deputation in Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). On 08.11.2011, he was posted as Superintendent of Police (SP), Special Crime Branch, CBI, Mumbai in the month of November, 2011. On 08.10.2012, he was posted at Nagpur as Head of Branch (HoB)/SP, Anti-Corruption Branch and he worked in that capacity till May, 2013. While he was in Nagpur one case being RC-16 (A)/2013, was registered on 12.9.2013 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against one Shri Harshvardhan Nanoti, Income Tax Officer, Khamgaon, Maharashtra and one Shri Rajendra Jaiswal, a business man was the conduit, who had received the illegal receipt on behalf of Shri Nanoti, Income Tax Officer. During course of investigation, search was conducted at the residence of Shri Rajendra Jaiswal at Akola on 02.10.2013, and the search was conducted by Shri Vijay Kumar, the then Dy. S.P., CBI, Nagpur. During the search, currency, gold ornaments etc. were seized in the presence of search witness and after the search, the Dy. S.P.- Shri Vijay Kumar had kept the seized items in the branch Malkhana and the same was entered in Malkhana Register, on 02.10.2013. Thereafter, Shri Vijay Kumar, Dy. S.P. submitted a proposal on 04.10.2013, to keep the seized currency, gold jewellery etc. in the official Bank Locker maintained by CBI, Nagpur at Punjab National Bank. Then on 05.10.2013, Shri Vijay Kumar, the then Dy. S.P. called the search witnesses, the son of Shri Rajendra Jaiswal to CBI Office in Nagpur and in the presence of search witnesses he drew a memo about the seized items and after completion of the investigation, final report under Section 173 of Cr. P.C. was filed. Then on 22.07.2014, the concerned Special Court ordered to release the seized gold jewellery etc. to Shri Rajendra Jaiswal and on 22.09.2014, in compliance of the order of the Special Court, a valuer was called at the CBI Office. Shri Rajendra Jaiswal was also called and the Locker was opened and during that time, it came to the notice of CBI Officials about discrepancies of gold jewellery and the same was informed to the petitioner by the CBI Officials. The petitioner then informed the same to his Senior Officer i.e. Head of Zone (HoZ) at Bhopal and further directed the Investigating Officer Shri Niraj Kumar to redeposit the said gold jewellery in the locker. Thereafter, Shri Vijay Kumar, the Dy. The petitioner then informed the same to his Senior Officer i.e. Head of Zone (HoZ) at Bhopal and further directed the Investigating Officer Shri Niraj Kumar to redeposit the said gold jewellery in the locker. Thereafter, Shri Vijay Kumar, the Dy. S.P. was summoned to clarify on the said issue and Vijay Kumar, the Dy. S.P. could not explain the loss/discrepancy of gold jewellery and thereafter, the petitioner submitted a written complaint before the Senior Officer for registering the case for missing of gold, jewellery etc. After completion of the investigation of the said RC-01(A)/2015, CBI, AC-III, New Delhi had send the CBI report to the State Government of Nagaland with a copy endorsing to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), New Delhi. The CBI report, besides recommending the prosecution against Shri Vijay Kumar, Dy. S.P. has also recommended for Regular Departmental Action (RDA) for major proceedings, to be initiated against the petitioner under relevant AIS (Disciplinary & Conduct) Rules. Thereafter, the petitioner gave his explanation to the Memorandum of Charges vide letter, dated 15.12.2017 refuting each and every charges leveled against him with a cogent reason. Thereafter, the explanation submitted by the petitioner was processed by the State Government and the Competent Authority, vide letter No. POL/ESTT-3/23/2016, dated 01.02.2018, addressed to the DIG, CBI, New Delhi informed that the Competent Authority had found the reply of the petitioner just and fair and the allegations were not substantiated. Thereafter, the petitioner was charged with a letter No. PHQ(B-X)/IPS/2/2019, dated 15.06.2020, by the Nagaland Police acting on the letter, dated 04.03.2020 issued by the CBI which was addressed to the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland, wherein, the CBI sought explanations from the petitioner with respect to the charges/misconduct mentioned in Serial No. (iii) to (v) of the Memorandum of Charges, dated 11.12.2017. Then on receipt of the same, the petitioner found that there are no new grounds or allegations/charges which are different than the earlier Article of Charges and thereafter, the petitioner has filed an RTI from the Competent Authority and got information that the procedure was completed and the petitioner was exonerated from the alleged charges”. 5. Then on receipt of the same, the petitioner found that there are no new grounds or allegations/charges which are different than the earlier Article of Charges and thereafter, the petitioner has filed an RTI from the Competent Authority and got information that the procedure was completed and the petitioner was exonerated from the alleged charges”. 5. Being highly aggrieved, by the impugned letter, dated 04.03.2020, the petitioner challenged the act of the Union respondent on the ground that he had already submitted his explanation to all the 5 (five) Head of Charges, which were sent to him vide letter No. POL(ESTT)/03/2013 on 11.12.2017 and he has specifically given explanation to the Charge No. (iii) to (v), vide his letter dated 15/12/2017, and as such, the impugned letter is bad in law and filed with ulterior motive and the same is tainted with arbitrariness, irrational, mala fide and is not in conformity with the standard of statutory and constitutional norm and administrative fair play, and that the petitioner had duly replied to all the charges and the impugned letter is nothing but an act of victimizing the present petitioner which had cascading effect upon his service career and that it is settled position of law that any enquiry which is to be followed by penal provision/punitive action against the public servant has to be conducted in strict compliance of the relevant statute in a time bound manner and the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 also stipulates a maximum period of 6 months for conducting any enquiry or investigation and as such, the impugned letter is barred by time and therefore, it is contended to quash the impugned letter, dated 04.03.2020. 6. Mr. S. Borgohain, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned letter, issued by the CBI is tainted with arbitrariness, irrational and with mala fide intention and the same is not in conformity with the statutory as well as constitutional norm and also contrary to the principles of Administrative fair play. Mr. 6. Mr. S. Borgohain, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned letter, issued by the CBI is tainted with arbitrariness, irrational and with mala fide intention and the same is not in conformity with the statutory as well as constitutional norm and also contrary to the principles of Administrative fair play. Mr. Borgohain, taking this Court through the Annexure -1 & Annexure -2, submits that the petitioner has submitted his reply to all the Charges vide Annexure-2, and the same was duly considered by the State Government which is apparent from Annexure-3 &-5 and the Charges mentioned in the Annexure-1 and also in the Annexure-4 are same and as such, the respondent had no ground to issue the impugned letter, dated 04.03.2020, and there is also no ground for filing fresh explanation to the Charge No. (iii) to (v). Mr. Borgohain, further submits that the impugned letter has cascading effect upon the service career of the petitioner and his deputation to other Department had already been stalled and therefore, it is contended to set aside the aforesaid impugned letter, dated 04.03.2020. 7. Per contra Mr. Bendangwapang, learned Standing Counsel for the CBI, submits that if the petitioner is not willing to submit his reply to the Charge No. (iii) to (v) again, the respondent authorities may consider the explanation submitted by him earlier, on 15/12/2017, and proceed to take further action upon the same if so warranted and as such, he has no objection in the event of quashing the impugned letter, dated 04.03.2020. 8. On the other hand, Mr. E. T. Phom, the learned counsel representing the respondent Nos. 5, 6 & 7, submits that the State has already taken a decision upon the charges and the same had been communicated to the Ministry of Home Affairs and it has nothing to do with the impugned letter, dated 04.03.2020. 9. The respondent Nos. 1- the Ministry of Home Affairs and respondent No. 2 the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and respondent No.-3 the CBI had filed their affidavit-in-opposition and denied each and every averment made in the petition. The CVC had stated that as per provision of Section 15 of the Central Vigilance Act 2003, no suit, prosecution or legal proceeding lie against the Commission or Vigilance Commissioner and therefore, it is contended to strike out the CVC from the array of the petition. 10. The CVC had stated that as per provision of Section 15 of the Central Vigilance Act 2003, no suit, prosecution or legal proceeding lie against the Commission or Vigilance Commissioner and therefore, it is contended to strike out the CVC from the array of the petition. 10. Having heard the submission of the learned Advocates of both the sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record. It appears that vide letter No. POL /ESTT/03/2013, dated 11.12.2017, the petitioner was served with the Memorandum by the Special Secretary, Home Department, Government of Nagaland, Kohima. And pursuant to the said Memorandum, the petitioner had already submitted his explanation to the 5 (five) charges leveled therein, vide Annexure-II, dated 15.12.2017. Despite, vide impugned letter, dated 04.03.2020-(Annexure-IV), the petitioner was again asked to submit his reply to the Charge No. (iii) to (v), which the petitioner had already submitted on 15.12.2017-(Annexure-II). 11. A careful perusal of the letter, dated 04.03.2020, and the charges mentioned in the letter, dated 11.12.2017, reveals that charges in both the letters appears to be same. And as such, further explanation upon the same charges is uncalled for. The impugned letter, dated 04.03.2020, appears to have been issued without application of mind and the same is not in conformity with administrative fair play. 12. In view of the above, this Court finds sufficient force in the submission, so advanced by Mr. S. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel for the CBI and respondent No. 5, 6 & 7, had not objected in quashing the impugned letter, dated 04.03.2020. 13. Accordingly, as agreed, the impugned letter, dated 04.03.2020, issued by the Superintendent of Police, CBI, to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Nagaland, referring to letter No.26011/55/2018-IPS-II, dated 20.02.2020, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India stands set aside and quashed. However, liberty remains with the respondent authority, to proceed with the explanation, so furnished by the petitioner, vide his letter dated 15.12.2017, if so warranted and advised. 14. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of. The parties have to bear their own cost.