NABAM RAMESHWOR SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned memorandum dated 6th October, 1997 bearing No. 28/2/92/-Power, the office order/letter dated 1st August, 1998 bearing No. 2/10/(9)/92-CE(P)/5239-40 and office order/letter dated 8th August, 1997 bearing No. 4/l(39)/97-CE(P)/4923-25 pertaining to Jhe Departmental proceedings as against the writ petitioner as well as withholding the pensionary benefits of the writ petitioner as in Annexure-A/4, A/6 and A/7 are the subject matters under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) Supporting the case of the writ petitioner, Mr L. Nandakumar Singh, learned senior advocate contended that the petitioner retired from service as Executive Engineer under the respondents with effect from 30th April, 1997 on attaining his age of superannuation and, that the petitioner before his retirement from service, the respondent No. 1 issued a letter dated 21st March, 1997 requesting All Commissioners/Secretaries, Govt. of Manipur, All Head of Departments, Manipur, All Deputy Commissioners, Manipur, Joint Secretary (Viigilance), Govt. of Manipur that the petitioner is due to retire from service on 30th April, 1997 (A/N) on superannuation and to intimate if there is any Government due(s) to be recovered from the petitioner on or before 20th April, 1997, failing which it will be presumed that there is no Government due(s) to be recovered from him as seen in the document marked as Annexure-A/1 to the writ petition and none of the Government Department including the respondent No. 1 intimated the petitioner about any dues to be recovered from him and, apart from it, the respondent No. 1 accorded sanction for payment of leave salary for 240 days in view of unutilised earned leave for 240 days as seen in the document marked as Annexure-A/3 to the writ petition and even the petitioner submitted all the required documents along with duly filled up prescribed farms for grant of pensionary benefits in terms of the Manipur Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1977; but to the utter surprise of the petitioner the impugned memorandum dated 6th October, 1997 was served upon the petitioner on 25th November, 1997 along with the copy of memorandum of charges and an enquiry has been proposed to be held against the petitioner and one Shri L. Babutombi Singh under Rule 14 of the CCS (CC & A) Rules, 1965. The alleged charges levelled against the petitioner and Shri L. Babutombi Singh are that while they were functioning and workingas Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer respectively at Electricity Stores Divisien, Yurembam during 1988-90 they had not carry out physical stock verification and checking as was required under the provisions of the CPWD Manual and as a result of it there was shortage of store materials worth Rs. 10,54,317.50 p (Rupees ten lakhs fifty four thousand three hundred seventeen and fifty paise) only. According to Mr L. Nandakumar Singh, no Departmental proceeding can be taken up against the petitioner as he had already ceased to be a Government servant and rather, heretired from service with effect from 30th April, 1997 (A/ N). It is also argued by the learned senior counsel that the said proceeding shall not be instituted as against the writ petitioner in view of the provisions of law laid down under Rule 9(2)(b) of the Manipur Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1977 because of the fact that the said proceeding being one which relates to the alleged commission and omission that took place in the year 1988-90. A great injustice has been done to the writ petitioner by the State respondents thus, debarring the petitioner to enjoy his pensionary benefits and directing him to appear in person before the Inquiring Authority on 20th August. 1998 under the related impugned orders of 1st August, 1998 and 8th August, 1997 as in Annexure-A/6 and A/7 to the writ petition Mr L. Nandakumar Singh argued. The learned senior counsel went on to contend that necessary direction may be issued from the end of this Court to the State respondents to afford pensionary benefits with interest in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in a case between Dr. Uma Agarwal- Vs-State of U.P. and another in Writ Petition (C) No. 771 of 1995.

(3.) At the hearing Mr Kh. Nimaichand Singh, learned Additional Govt. Advocate had produced and placed a related copy of the Power Department's order/letter dated 22nd July, 1997 bearing No. 28/2/92-Power, Govt. of Manipur (marked as "X") and submitted that the Vigilance Department made a recommendation for sanction of Departmental enquiry against the present petitioner and one Shri L. Babutombi Singh, Assistant Engineer (Elect.) in the year 1997 and there is no delay while submitting the memorandum of charge- sheet against the petitioner in connection with the said Departmental enquiry and there is no bar under the law to initiate or institute Departmental proceedings against the Government employee after his or her retirement. The learned Additional Govt. Advocate also argued that the authority has the power and jurisdiction to withhold the pension and gratuity under the provisions of CCS (Pension) Rules. 1972 in view of the decision of the Apex Court render in Union of India and another, appellant-Vs-G. Ganayntham (Dead) by LRs., respondent reported in AIR 1997 SC 3387 and as such, there is no irregularity or incorrectness thus withholding the pensionary benefits of the writ petitioner because of the pendency of the said Departmental proceeding. It is also argued by the learned Additional Govt. Advocate that if the charges are proved as against the petitioner and one Shri L. Babutombi Singh, Assistant Engineer, the related loss of money amounting to Rs. 10,54,317.50p has to be recovered from them and that the provisions of Rule 9(2)(b) of the said Rules, 1977 is not applicable in the instant case as the initiation of the Departmental enquiry is a joint one against the petitioner and another person namely Shri L. Babutombi Singh.