T. Hemjit Singh v. The State of Manipur

B E F O R E HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR For the appellants Mr. Shyam Sharma, GA For the respondent Date of Order Ms. Babita Th., Advocate 20-04-2022 ∷ ∷ ∷ O R D E R 20-04-2022 Sanjay Kumar (C.J.), [1] The State of Manipur and the Director of Settlement & Land Records, Manipur, are in appeal against the order dated 25-11-2021 passed by a learned Judge of this Court, allowing WP(C) No. 677 of 2021. [2] By the said order, the learned Judge quashed and set aside the suspension order dated 27-02-2021 passed against the writ petitioner, on WA No. 57 of 2022 the ground that there was clear violation of Rule 10(7) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for brevity, ‘the Rules of 1965). [3] Heard Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the appellants; and Ms. Babita Th., learned counsel for the respondent, the petitioner in WP(C) No. 677 of 2021. [4] Facts relevant to this adjudication fall within a narrow compass. The respondent was a Supervisor Kanango (i/c) in the Directorate of Settlement & Land Records, Manipur, at the relevant time. The Deputy Secretary (Revenue), Government of Manipur, placed him under suspension, in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings, by order dated 27-02-2021. This was done in exercise of power under Rule 10 (1) of the Rules of 1965. Notably, Rule 10(7) of the Rules of 1965 mandates that an order of suspension passed under sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 shall not be valid after a period of ninety days unless it is extended, after review, for a further period, before the expiry of ninety days. Admittedly, there was no such review undertaken within ninety days from the date of the suspension order, viz., 27-02-2021. It was reviewed only thereafter and by order dated 23-09- 2021, the Deputy Secretary (Revenue), Government of Manipur, extended the suspension for a further period of one hundred and eighty days w.e.f. 29-05-2021. [5] In these circumstances, the learned Judge held that the failure to review the suspension order within ninety days could not be countenanced in the light of the statutory mandate. The learned Judge held that COVID-19 WA No. 57 of 2022 pandemic did not constitute a ground in itself to dispense with the binding procedure, as no order/memorandum had been issued by the authorities concerned placing the mandatory rule in abeyance due to the situation caused by the pandemic. It is on this ground that the learned Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned suspension order. [6] Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned Government Advocate, would contend that the abnormal situation caused in the Secretariat of the Revenue Department due to the second wave of the pandemic affected its normal functioning and, therefore, the failure to review the suspension within ninety days could not be said to be fatal. Further, he would state that the learned Judge erred in not granting time to the authorities to file a reply to the rejoinder filed by the respondent/writ petitioner. Lastly, he would contend that, as the learned Judge did not set aside the later extension order dated 23-09-2021, there is an error apparent in the order under appeal. [7] However, this Court finds no merits in these contentions. The statutory rule is absolute in its language and import. It states in no uncertain terms that an order of suspension ‘shall not be valid’ after a period of ninety days unless it is extended after review. It also makes it clear that such review necessarily has to be made before the expiry of ninety days. [8] No order or rule was put in place by the authorities that this binding rule would remain in abeyance owing to the pandemic. Be it noted that the Supreme Court issued orders freezing the law of limitation during the peak of the pandemic. Had it been the intention of the authorities to introduce similar measures in relation to binding time stipulations obtaining under WA No. 57 of 2022 statutory rules and, more particularly, Rule 10(7) of the Rules of 1965, steps could have been taken in that regard on the same lines as was done by the Supreme Court. However, no evidence is placed before this Court of any such steps being taken by the authorities concerned. The contention of the learned Government Advocate that the pandemic is sufficient in itself to dispense with the statutory mandate is accordingly rejected. [9] As regards the second plea of the learned Government Advocate, a party has no inherent right to file a reply to a rejoinder. That course of action would be permitted by the Court only if the rejoinder raises new facts. In the case on hand, it is not the case of the authorities even at this stage that any such new facts were put forth in the rejoinder of the respondent/ writ petitioner. Therefore, no prejudice was caused to them. [10] As regards the last plea, it may be noted that the learned Judge adverted to the review undertaken after the expiry of ninety days, resulting in the extension order dated 23-09-2021. Therefore, it is not as if the order under appeal proceeded in ignorance thereof. Significantly, the said order was not independent of the earlier suspension order dated 27-02-2021 and was merely in continuation thereof. Thereby, the Deputy Secretary (Revenue), Government of Manipur, sought to extend the suspension by another one hundred and eighty days. Therefore, the said order had no separate legs to stand upon and was consequent upon the order of suspension dated 27-02-2021, which was impugned in the writ petition. Once the initial suspension order dated 27-02-2021 was set aside, the extension order dated 23-09-2021 could not survive and stood extinguished by implication. WA No. 57 of 2022 [11] We therefore find no error in law or error on facts having been committed by the learned Judge, warranting appellate inference. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Victoria NINGOM BAM VICTORIA VICTORIA 17:02:35 +05'30' WA No. 57 of 2022