Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Moirangthem Sushil Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Manipur & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 226 of 2022
Decided On : 18-08-2022
Suspension Order - Government Employee - CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - ND&PS Act - Police Act, 1861 - Section 21(c)/29/60(3) of ND&PS Act - Rule 10(7) of CCS (CCA) Rules - Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861 - Assam Police Manual - Review of Suspension Order - Legal Principles
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a driver in the Manipur Police Department, was suspended after being implicated in a criminal case. The petitioner challenged the suspension order, citing non-compliance with the CCS (CCA) Rules and sought release of entitled subsistence allowance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suspension order was not reviewed within 90 days as required by Rule 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. The court held that the suspension order was not sustainable and directed the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner and pay the subsistence allowance.
Issues: Non-compliance with Rule 10(7) of CCS (CCA) Rules, applicability of Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861, and the entitlement to subsistence allowance during suspension.
Ratio Decidendi: The suspension order must be reviewed within 90 days as per Rule 10(7) of CCS (CCA) Rules. The court also considered the provisions of Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861 and the Assam Police Manual in determining the legality of the suspension order.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the respondent authorities were directed to reinstate the petitioner and pay the subsistence allowance.
JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned suspension order dated 2.9.2021 issued by the third respondent and to direct the respondents to release the entitled subsistence allowance of the petitioner within a stipulated period.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is as follows:
The petitioner was appointed as driver in the Manipur Police Department and joined as driver in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Thoubal District. On 27.8.2021, the petitioner was proceeding from Khangabok to Moreh by carrying Rs.50,000/- for purchasing some carpets and household items from Moreh. Thereafter, the petitioner was proceeding from Moreh to Khangabok after completing his purchase by hiring one Eco Van Taxi. While he was approaching Wangjing Bridge on his way from Moresh to Khangabok, he has been informed by a senior police officer to meet at Wangjing Bazaar. Accordingly, the petitioner met the senior police officer and thereafter, the petitioner was taken to a place near Khongjom by the team of the senior police officer. Subsequently, the petitioner and two others were arrested in connection with an alleged incident that occurred at Moreh on a report submitted by one senior officer of the police department in connection with transportation of illegal drugs contraband items from Moreh towards Imphal and he was handed over to Moreh Police Station on 28.8.2021 and case in FIR No.42(8)2021 under Section 21(c)/29/60(3) of ND&PS Act was registered by the Moreh Police Station against the petitioner and others.
3. Further case of the petitioner is that after knowing the arrest, the third respondent placed the petitioner under suspension vide the impugned order dated 2.9.2021. On medical ground, the petitioner was granted interim bail and released o 24.2.2022. He was wrongly implicated in the FIR and as on date, no charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner in the FIR case.
4. According to the petitioner, placing a Government employee under suspension for a long period shall not serve any purpose, because the suspended employee has to be paid subsistence allowance under the provisions of the relevant Rules and on the other hand, the suspended employee shall not discharge any useful or productive duty for the concerned period.
5. Under Rule 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under the rules shall be reviewed by the competent authority to modify or revoke the suspension, before expiry of 90 days from the date of order of suspension and if the said order of suspension is not reviewed/extended for further period as provided under Rule 10(6), the order of suspension shall cease to exist after expiry of 90 days in view of the provision to Rule 10(7) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The petitioner is under suspension for more than 180 days and no review committee was constituted before expiry of 3 months from initial date of suspension. Thus, the impugned suspension order is liable to be revoked.
6. The respondents 2 and 3 filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that after collecting materials against the petitioner and considering the probability of the petitioner being involved in FIR No.42(8)2021, the petitioner was implicated and arrested. In fact, the petitioner is the main accused in the said FIR. It is stated that the petitioner was on interim bail since 6.10.2021 on medical grounds as he was found suffering from severe Bronchitis with acute Asthmatic attached which required proper specialized medical treatment and that the interim bail was extended from time to time by the Court upon finding the condition of the petitioner.
7. It is stated that as per the Circular dated 12.9.1995 of the Director General of Police, it was informed that appointment, dismissal etc. of subordinate police officers (from constable upto inspector) is governed by Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861 and for its operation Assam Police Manual has been framed and hence the provisions of CCS (C
The suspension order must be reviewed within 90 days as per Rule 10(7) of CCS (CCA) Rules, and the power of suspension should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner.
The extension of suspension orders without the recommendation of the Review Committee and failure to extend the suspension within the prescribed period rendered the suspension orders invalid.
The court upheld the legitimacy of the applicant's suspension extension under CCS (CCA) Rules due to ongoing criminal proceedings concerning moral turpitude, justifying the action despite the duratio....
Suspension orders requiring review must be executed within 90 days, and failure to serve charges timely invalidates extensions beyond this period.
Prolonged suspension of a government employee without timely inquiry or a reasoned order for extension is unreasonable and violates principles of natural justice and the right to a speedy trial.
Prolonged suspension of a government employee without timely inquiry and review is unreasonable and violates principles of natural justice and the right to a speedy trial.
Point of Law : Mandate of an outer limit of 3 (three) months is only for the purpose of drawing up a departmental proceeding and the requirement to undertake an exercise of review prior to the said p....
Suspension orders under Rule 5 of the Gujarat Civil Services Rules must be reviewed within 90 days; failure to do so invalidates the suspension.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suspension order must be reviewed within 90 days as per the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and court judgments, and failure to do so renders the sus....
Point of law: seriousness and gravity of the misconduct contemplated to be enquired into and the material i.e., voice messages along with the complaint by the complainant Anil Proddaturu and recordin....
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
