STATE OF MANIPUR Vs. SERAM THOIBA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER extensively hearing both Mr. H. Samarjit, the learned State counsel, and Mr. Roshni Piba, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent, it becomes obvious that the question which falls for consideration in this miscellaneous application is, whether, on the facts of the case that the writ petitioner has retired from service on 28 -2 -2012 on superannuation, this application for vacating the interim order dated 12 -8 -2011, which was thereafter extended from time to time, staying the order dated 6 -9 -2011 placing the writ petitioner under suspension, has not become infructuous?

(2.) THE writ petitioner used to be serving as General Manager, District Industries Centre under the Government of Manipur. While he was posted as the General Manager, DIC at Thoubal, the State -respondents issued the order dated 18 -8 -2008 transferring him as General Manager of DIC, Thoubal. After serving there for about 21 months, he was transferred and posted to Directorate of Commerce and Industries, Headquarters as Officer -on -Special Duty ('OSD'), which, according to the writ petitioner, is an unknown post or an ex -cadre post and, in his place, his junior officers was directed to hold the charge of General Manager, DIC, Thoubal with a further direction that he should draw his pay from this junior officer vide the order dated 1 -6 -2010. Aggrieved by this, he filed WP(C) No. 323 of 2010 before this Court challenging the transfer order. This Court by the interim order dated 1 -6 -2010 has stayed the operation of the impugned transfer order until further order. After 11 months of the interim order of this Court, the State -respondents issued the order dated 3 -5 -2011 cancelling the impugned transfer order in respect of the writ petitioner and the respondent No. 3. This was again followed by another order dated 1 -7 -2011 issued by the Staterespondents transferring the writ petitioner as General Manager, DIC at Chandel by directing that the post held by him at Thoubal would be looked after by the senior -most officer until further orders. It is the contention of the writ petitioner that by this device, State -respondents were determined to accommodate the respondent No. 3 against the post of General Manager, DIC, Thoubal on in charge basis.

(3.) IT is also the case of the writ petitioner that on coming to know the above move of the State -respondents, he submitted a representation on 2 -7 -2011 to review/cancel the order dated 1 -7 -2011, but his representation was never disposed of. This prompted him to file another writ petition being WP(C) No. 3455 of 2011 before the Principal Bench of this Court due to summer vacation here, and this Court by the order dated 6 -7 -2011 stayed the impugned order till the next returnable date. To the consternation of the writ petitioner, the Staterespondents by the letter dated 1 -8 -2011 observed that a Government servant could not disobey a transfer order and required him to submit a written explanation on or before 6 -8 -2011 as to why necessary action should not be taken against him under the rules. This, according to the writ petitioner, was done to frustrate the order of this Court. This letter was never served upon him, and it was only on 5 -8 -2011 at about 2.37 PM that the same was received by him through one of his staff at Thoubal. On receipt of this explanation call, he submitted his explanation on 8 -8 -2011 i.e. within five days of the receipt of the letter. The allegation of the writ petitioner is that while he was submitting his explanation call, the impugned suspension order, which is back -dated as 6 -6 -2011 was served upon him. These are the sum and substance of the case of the petitioner.