N KISHORDA DEVI Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is impugning order of suspension issued by the Chief Secretary on 20th March, 1999 vide Annexure-A/15. The petitioner is also impugning the consequential order dated 20th March, 1999 by which the respondent No. 4 is directed to "hold the charge of the Director of Health, Manipur with immediate effect without extra remuneration in addition to his normal duty and until further order in public interest." The petitioner also impugns another consequential order issued on 20th March, 1999 under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 by which an inquiry officer has been appointed to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. Para 3 of the said order reads: "Now, therefore, the Governor of Manipur in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (2) of the said rule, hereby appoints Shri P.C. Lawkunga, IAS, Commissioner (Departmental Enquiries), Government of Manipur as Inquiring Authority to inquire into the charges framed against the said Shri/Dr. N. Kshiroda Devi."

(2.) I have heard Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner, Mr T. Nandakumar, learned Advocate General for respondents 1,2 and 3 and Mr H.S. Paonam, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 at length. Several decisions of the Supreme Court as well of the High Court have been cited on behalf of the parties and in support of their respective submissions. I have pursued the relevant citations. Upon careful perusal of the pleadings filed on behalf of the parties including relevant documents/impugned orders, though submissions have been made on behalf of the parties from various angles, I am of the view that the only point that should be considered by this Court is as to the legality of the order of suspension issued by the State Government against the writ petitioner. In view of this, it is not necessary for me to give finding on any other submissions not directly connected with the legality or illegality of the order of suspension issued on 20th March, 1999.

(3.) It may be stated that in 1988 a complaint was made against the writ petitioner by one Satyavama alleging that the writ petitioner was living with the husband of Smti. Satyavama. Some enquiry was made by the Director of Vigilance. A report was submitted. It was stated in the report that the case was a serious one and proper enquiry should be made and major penalty be imposed. However, the said enquiry was closed vide Annexure-A/11 to the writ petition dated 10th March, 1998. Relevant portion is as under: