1. Heard Shri M. Hemchandra and Shri A. Romenkumar, the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 966 of 2015, Shri P. Tamphamani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 622 of 2015, Shri I. Lalitkumar, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Th. Rommel, the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 1025 of 2015, Shri B.P. Sahu, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Phungyo Zingkhai, the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 239 of 2016 and Shri Kh. Tarunkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 320 of 2016; Shri N. Ibotombi, the learned Addl. Advocate General, Manipur assisted by Shri A. Rommel, the learned Jr. Govt. Advocate, Shri R.K. Umakanta, the learned Addl. Government Advocate and Shri Y. Ashang, the learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

2. Few issues have arisen out of these writ petitions and the main question of law commonly involved in all of them is as to whether the Sub-Rule (6) & (7), inserted by way of amendment, in Rule 10 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [hereinafter referred to as the “CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965”] are applicable in the State of Manipur or not. Since the main issue involved herein is common, all the writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

W.P. (C) No. 966 of 2015

3.1 According to the petitioner, he was initially appointed as Process Server on officiating basis in the Office of the Revenue Commissioner, Manipur vide order dated 29-04-1986 and his ad-hoc/officiating service was regularized w.e.f. 27-03-1993 vide order dated 08-04-1993 and since then, he had been discharging his duties with full dedication. To his utter shock and surprise, the Under Secretary (Revenue), Government of Manipur issued an order dated 17-03-2015 placing the petitioner under suspension because of his alleged involvement in a case being FIR No. 3(3) 2015-VPS u/s. 120-B/420/468 IPC & 8, 9, 13 P.C. Act, by exercising the power conferred under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 of the CCA Rules, 1965.

3.2 A memorandum dated 16-04-2015 was issued by the Deputy Secretary (Revenue), Government of Manipur enclosing therewith the articles of charges framed against him. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence on 02-05-2015 denying the allegations made in the memorandum. Since the petitioner belongs to a poor family, he submitted a representation dated 29-06-2015 to the Deputy Secretary (Revenue), Government of Manipur requesting him to grant subsistence allowance. Although it has been more than eight months from the date of suspension, there has not been any investigation/enquiry and other development in connection with the said case. Ninety days period as prescribed in Sub-Rule (6) had expired from the date of suspension but there was no Review Committee being constituted nor was any review being done in respect of the suspension of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned suspension order dated 17-03-2015 is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason that it contravenes the provisions of Sub-Rule (6) and (7) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and therefore, the suspension order is liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing/setting aside the impugned suspension order.

W.P. (C) No. 622 of 2015

4.1 According to the petitioner, he is a Government employee serving as Khalasi/ Borganda in the P.W.D., Electrical Division No. III, Manipur. He was posted and utilized as Borganda for moving bills to the Treasury Office. He had been discharging his duties sincerely to the satisfaction of his superior Officers and there was no adverse record in his service career. However, on 21-09-2012, he was arrested by the Police Personnel of City Police Station in connection with FIR Case No. 1