Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Khaidem Narendrajit Singh & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Manipur & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 727 of 2019, WP(C) No. 208 of 2022, WP(C) No. 209 of 2022
Decided On : 10-10-2022
Quashing of show cause notice and office memorandum - 6.2.2018, 19.8.2019 - The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned show cause notice and office memorandum, and directed the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners and issue appropriate orders retaining their service as Store Keeper in the CAF & PD Department like other similarly situated Civil Supply Inspectors who have been regularized.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were appointed as Store Keeper but were not allowed to discharge their duties at their posting place. They challenged the show cause notice and filed multiple writ petitions seeking to join their respective service and to consider their case.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned show cause notice and office memorandum were quashed. The court directed the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners and issue appropriate orders retaining their service as Store Keeper.
Issues: Validity of show cause notice and office memorandum, denial of joining posting place, rejection of representations, regularisation of other Civil Supply Inspectors
Ratio Decidendi: The appointment of the petitioners was not irregular, and the impugned show cause notice was issued without proper consideration. The rejection of representations and denial of joining posting place were unjust and arbitrary, violating Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed, and the impugned show cause notice, office memorandum, and orders were quashed. The respondent authorities were directed to consider the case of the petitioners and issue appropriate orders retaining their service as Store Keeper.
JUDGMENT
1. WP (C) No.727 of 2019 has been filed by the petitioners to quash the impugned show cause notice dated 6.2.2018 and the office memorandum dated 19.8.2019 and to direct the respondents to review and reconsider the decision of the State Government for the proposed action against the petitioners in terms of the impugned show cause notice as well the office memorandum.
2. WP (C) No.208 of 2022 has been filed by the very same petitioners to quash the impugned order dated 25.2.2021 and its corrigendum dated 26.2.2022 and consequently, direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to join their respective service as Store Keeper as has done in the case of other similarly situated numbering 31 Civil Supply Inspectors, who were appointed along with the petitioners.
3. WP (C) No.209 of 2022 has been by the petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners and to issue necessary orders retaining the service of the petitioners as Store Keeper in the CAF & PD Department like other similarly situated Civil Supply, Inspectors who have been regularised earlier.
4. Since the parties and the point for determination in all three writ petitions are one and the same, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.
5. The case of the petitioners is as follows:
The petitioners were appointed as Store Keeper on the recommendation of a DPC held pursuant to the advertisement dated 16.12.2016 and have joined the service and were allowed to discharge their duties at Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution Department [CAF & PD] Office, Sangaipurou. However, after some time, the petitioners were not allowed to discharge duty at their posting place by the authority without any valid reasons. Subsequently, a show cause notice dated 6.2.2018 was served on the petitioners for cancelling their appointment order on the basis of the report of SIT constituted to investigate irregularities in the recruitment process. Challenging the show cause notice, the petitioners filed WP (C) No.797 of 2019, wherein this Court was pleased to restrain the respondents from acting upon the show cause notice.
6. When the petitioners came to know that similarly situated persons were allowed to join their posting place and still continuing in service, the petitioners submitted representations to the respondent authorities for allowing them to join to their posting places as has been done in the case of similarly situated persons. When the authority failed to consider the representations, the petitioners filed WP (C) No.1075 of 2019 praying inter alia for allowing them to join to their posting place, coupled with a prayer for directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the representations. By the order dated 27.12.2019, the said writ petition was disposed of by directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the representations.
7. However, only on the ground that pendency of the writ petition challenging the show cause notice and the order of the Department of Personnel to cancel the recruitment process without considering the fact that some similarly situated persons are allowed to join posting place, rejected the representations of the petitioners vide order dated 13.1.2020. Challenging the order dated 13.1.2020, the petitioners filed WP (C) No.78 of 2020. On 19.2.2020, when the said writ petition was taken up for hearing, the learned Advocate General produced a copy of the order dated 18.2.2020 withdrawing and cancelling the order dated 13.1.2020. As such, the Court observed that there is nothing left to consider. Hence, WP (C) No.78 of 2020 was disposed of observing that when the representations filed by the petitioners are being considered, the observation made in WP (C) No.1075 of 2019 dated 27.12.2019 shall be considered.
8. According to the petitioners, in total disregard of the aforesaid orders, the representations filed by the petitioners and other Civil Supply Inspectors have b
The impugned show cause notice was issued without proper consideration, and the rejection of representations and denial of joining posting place were unjust and arbitrary, violating Article 14 and 16....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice in administrative actions, particularly in employment disputes.
The impugned actions were quashed as they were issued in violation of the principles of natural justice and the directions of the court. The court found that the cancellation of the appointment order....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
