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 the departmental proceedings as against b 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 c 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. I 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 (Vigilance), Govt of Manipur that the petitioner is due to retire from service on 30th April, 1997 d (AM) on superannuation and to intimate if there is any Govt due (s) to be recovered from the petitioner on or before 20th April. 1997, failing which it will be presumed that there is no Govt 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 Govt Department including the respondent No.l intimated the petitioner about any dues to be recovered from him and, apart from it, the respondent No.l 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 forms 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 (CCA) Rules, 1965. The alleged charges levelled against the petitioner and Shri L. Babutombi Singh are that while they were functioning and working as Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer respectively at Electricity Stores Division, Yorembam 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 (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 Govt servant and rather, he retired 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 interes

Click Here to Read the rest of this document