MD. ZIAUDDIN Vs. THE STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri M. Hemchandra and Shri A. Romenkumar, the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 966 of 2015, Shri P. Tamphamani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 622 of 2015, Shri I. Lalitkumar, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Th. Rommel, the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1025 of 2015, Shri B.P. Sahu, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Phungyo Zingkhai, the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 239 of 2016 and Shri Kh. Tarunkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 320 of 2016; Shri N. Ibotombi, the learned Addl. Advocate General, Manipur assisted by Shri A. Rommel, the learned Jr. Govt. Advocate, Shri R.K. Umakanta, the learned Addl. Government Advocate and Shri Y. Ashang, the learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

(2.) Few issues have arisen out of these writ petitions and the main question of law commonly involved in all of them is as to whether the Sub -Rule (6) & (7), inserted by way of amendment, in Rule 10 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 hereinafter referred to as the "CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965". are applicable in the State of Manipur or not. Since the main issue involved herein is common, all the writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(3.) According to the petitioner, he was initially appointed as Process Server on officiating basis in the Office of the Revenue Commissioner, Manipur vide order dated 29 -04 -1986 and his ad -hoc/ officiating service was regularized w.e.f. 27 -03 -1993 vide order dated 08 -04 -1993 and since then, he had been discharging his duties with full dedication. To his utter shock and surprise, the Under Secretary (Revenue), Government of Manipur issued an order dated 17 -03 -2015 placing the petitioner under suspension because of his alleged involvement in a case being FIR No. 3(3) 2015 -VPS u/s 120 -B/420/468 IPC & 8, 9, 13 P.C Act, by exercising the power conferred under Sub -Rule (2) of Rule 10 of the CCA Rules, 1965.