A DINAMANI SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has; challenged the validity of the impugned order dated 9.9,1994 issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Govt. of Manipuf, the 3rd respondent annexed as in Annexure A/21 to the writ petition awarding major penalty of reducing existing pay of the petitioner by two stages from Rs. 1440/ - to Rs. 1380/- in the scale of pay of Rs. 1200- 30-1570 -EB- 40-2040/- for a period of 2 years, with effect from 8.4.93, with further order to repay the extorted/loss amount of Rs. 2,93,500/- only, within a period of 5 years and also, restricting pay of the petitioner and subsistence allowance for the period under suspension and also the validity of the order of the appellate authority virtually amounting to the rejection or dismissal of the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner from the impugned order of 9.9.94.

(2.) A Departmental Inquiry was contemplated/initiated as against the writ petitioner under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, hereinafter referred to as CCS Rules, 1965, while the writ petitioner-a UDC, was functioning as Cashier in the Eastern Forest Division, Ukhrul, on the charge that he had committed lapses for serious negligence and dereliction of official duty and deliberate failure in carrying out instructions of the Divisional Forest Office, Ukhrul, to maintain secrecy resulting in considerable loss of Govt. money amounting to Rs. 2,93,500/- only, which was extorted from his hand on 1.4.93 vide office memorandum dated 19.6.93 in Annexure 2(1) to the writ petition. An Inquiry Officer had enquired into the charges framed against the said writ petitioner and the Inquiry officer also had submitted the related report dated 10.12.93 as in Annexure A/18 to the writ petition, and thereafter, the competent authority awarded the aforesaid major penalty under the impugned order of 9.9.94 as in Annexure A/21. The appeal of the writ petitioner from the impugned order of 9.9.94 was not acceded to by the appellate authority i.e. State Govt. under another impugned order of 14.4.95 issued by the State- respondents as in Annexure A/33 to the writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Y. Imo Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended, that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest/ the respondent No. 3 herein, having regard to the findings of the enquiring authority/ officer, the respondent No. 4 herein, on the charges against the petitioner, quote disregard to the evidence on record proposed to impose major penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for the period of 2 years from the date of suspension under Rule 11 (v) of the CCS Rules, 1965 as incorporated under Rule 15(4) of the said Rule and also, attributed to loss of Govt. money to the respondent No. 5 and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,46,750/- only being half of the loss amount from Shri A. Kharsing, the Divisional Forest Officer concerned (respondent No. 5) vide office letter dated 15.6.94. Apart from it, the Govt. of Manipur intentionally usurped the rights of the disciplinary authority/the respondent No.3, perversely, discriminately and capriciously, by issuing an order dated 25.7.94 as in Annexure A/20 to the writ petition for recovery of the extorted amount of Rs. 2,93,500/- only, from the petitioner in immunity of the respondent No. 5 namely, the Divisional Forest Officer concerned from the liability of recovery of the amount of Rs. 1,46,750/- as proposed by the Chief Conservator of Forest as in Annexure A/19 to the writ petition, Mr. Y. Imo Singh contended.