Alan Kamei aka Majalan Kamei v. The State of Manipur & Ors.

Order

:

12.10.2022 Date of Judgment & Order ::

19.12.2022 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV) W.P.(C) No.112 of 2022 has been filed by the petitioner to quash the order dated 11.1.2022 issued by the Government of India, as the same has been issued without considering the vigilance integrity certificate and to direct the fourth respondent to submit the vigilance inquiry closure report dated 29.11.2021 in connection with the complaint/report lodged by the petitioner.

2. W.P.(C) No.893 of 2021 has been filed by the petitioner to direct the second respondent therein to complete the preliminary inquiry promptly and without further delay.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their array in W.P.(C) No.112 of 2022. WP(C) No. 112 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 893 of 2022 P a g e | 4

The first respondent is the administrative head of all the Departments established and functioning under the Government of Manipur; the second respondent is the head of the State Vigilance Department; the third respondent is the executive wing of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and the fourth respondent is the investigative head of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, Government of Manipur.

5. Brief facts are as follows – [W.P.(C) No.122 of 2022]: On 16.4.2021, the petitioner lodged a complaint to the fourth respondent against the fifth respondent alleging inter alia that while the fifth respondent was serving as Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Autonomous District Council (ADC), Tamenglong and in connivance with the other ADC members, certain funds amounting to several crore have been misappropriated which have been sanctioned to Tamenglong District. In the complaint, it was alleged that the fifth respondent by clouting his authority had illegally awarded projects under the 14th Finance Commission to bogus work agencies and maliciously included the name of the petitioner as one of the work agencies without his knowledge and consent. Thus, the WP(C) No. 112 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 893 of 2022 P a g e | 5 fifth respondent in connivance with the other ADC members misappropriated a sum of Rs.13 lakh by implicating the petitioner as work agency corresponding to the work projects, namely development/maintenance cremation ground/cemetery amount to Rs.10 lakh; construction of drainage/water storm drainage amount to Rs.3 lakh.

5.1. Based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, fourth respondent initiated preliminary inquiry under Vigilance Case No.14/PE/SP-V&AC/2021 against the fifth respondent coupled with recording of statement of petitioner. Since no development was shown in regard to the Vigilance Case No.14/PE/SP-V&AC/2021, on 2.12.201, the petitioner submitted a reminder stating that the fifth respondent misappropriated a sum of Rs.18.02 crore sanctioned under 14th Finance Commission 2017 to 2018 for Tamenglong District.

5.2. On

5.10.2019, Lungjanang, Ex-Chairman Orathem, Tamenglong and N.C.Kaduanbou, social activist, filed a complaint before the Hon’ble Minister, TA & Hills in regard to the misappropriation of funds in the ADC, Tamenglong by the then ADC and the said complaint was received by the Anti- Corruption Cell, Manipur on 9.10.2019. On 27.11.2019, the WP(C) No. 112 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 893 of 2022 P a g e | 6 Department of P&AR, issued a letter seeking information whether any government dues to be recovered from the fifth respondent on or before 3.12.2021, failing which it would be presumed that there is no government dues to be recovered from the fifth respondent.

5.3. Since the fourth respondent failed to further proceed with the inquiry after due registration of the case, the petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.893 of 2021 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the fourth respondent to complete the preliminary inquiry promptly and without further delay. On

10.12.2021, this Court granted interim order directing that in the event of vigilance clearance being given to the fifth respondent, the same shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. Inspite of the existence of such interim order, the third respondent issued a vigilance integrity certificate dated

13.12.2021 in favour of the fifth respondent stating that no vigilance case is pending against the fifth respondent. The complaint lodged before the fourth respondent was closed on

29.11.2021 without even informing the petitioner the reason for such closure. WP(C) No. 112 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 893 of 2022 P a g e | 7

5.4. On 7.1.2022, the Manipur Lokayukta in Complaint Case No.3 of 2020 titled Gonmei Kuripou and Gailachung Kamei v. Namsinrei Panmei, Chairman, ADC, Tamenglong and another came to the conclusion that there exists prima facie case for investigation and issued certain directions by invoking powers under Section 20(3)(a) and 28 of the Manipur Lokayukta Act, 2014. While so, on 11.1.2022, the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, Department of Personnel and Training issued an order accepting the resignation of the fifth respondent born in the cadre of Manipur from the Indian Administrative Service with effect from 15.11.2021 mentioning that the intervening period i.e. from 15.11.2021 to the date of the issue of the letter shall be treated as dies-non. Challenging the order dated 11.1.2022, the petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.112 of 2022.

6. Resisting the writ petition, the fifth respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the writ petition is not maintainable since issuance of vigilance integrity certificate is purely service matter of the fifth respondent and no third party can seek for a writ in the service matter of an employee. Since the petitioner has nothing to do with the service of the fifth respondent, he cannot restrain the respondents from issuing WP(C) No. 112 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 893 of 2022 P a g e | 8 the integrity certificate or seek for cancellation of the integrity certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. It is stated that the disciplinary action against the official concerned lies entirely with the employer and it is not for the petitioner to ask for a writ of mandamus. The petitioner has not approached this Court for any good intention and he might have approached this Court with any other private intention i.e. to prevent the fifth respondent tendering resignation due to political differences.

6.1. It is stated that inspite of having full knowledge that the same issue is being investigated by the Manipur Lokayukta, the present writ petition is nothing but abuse of legal proceedings and, as such, the same having been filed with a mala fide intention. The petitioner could have waited for the outcome of the complaint case pending against the fifth respondent before the Manipur Lokayukta instead of filing the present writ petition since the Lokayukta will come to a concrete conclusion after completion of the investigation on the same issue raised in the vigilance complaint filed by the petitioner. The role of the petitioner ends once he made the complaint to the Vigilance Department and it is for the Vigilance Department WP(C) No. 112 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 893 of 2022 to take appropriate action to the complaint. Thus, prayed for P a g e | 9 dismissal of the writ petition. [W.P.(C) No.893 of 2021]:

7. On 16.4.2021, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the second respondent-Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Department, Government of Manipur against the fifth respondent alleging that the fifth respondent by clouting his authority had illegally awarded work/projects under the 14th Finance Commission to bogus work agencies and maliciously included the name of the petitioner as one of the work agencies without the knowledge of the petitioner. In conformity with the complaint, the second respondent informed the petitioner that preliminary enquiry has been initiated and, as such, the statement of the petitioner being the informant was recorded. However, so far no further development or progress has been shown by the second respondent and as such has been sitting over the matter despite the lapse of six months from the date of receiving the complaint and recording of the statement of the petitioner. The petitioner, on being deprived of his right to speedy completion of the preliminary enquiry, has made a reminder application dated 2.12.2021 to the second respondent WP(C) No. 112 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 893 of 2022 P a g e | 10 seeking for an intervention, as the fifth respondent has initiated to resign from his service in order to stand in the up-coming State Assembly election notwithstanding the vigilance case pending against him.

8. Resisting the writ petition, the respondents – Director, State Vigilance Department and the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, have filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that on receiving the complaint of the petitioner dated 16.4.2021, the Superintendent of Police started verification process to find out whether there is any prima facie evidence to initiate the preliminary enquiry. It is stated that as per the order of the Director dated 2.9.1985, the preliminary enquiry against the members of All India Services are to be registered on order of the Vigilance Commissioner, Manipur. The verification process started by the Superintendent of Police is just to find out whether there is ground for initiating the preliminary enquiry. After initiation of the verification process, the then Enquiry Officer sent a W.T. message to the CEO, Tamenglong ADC requesting to furnish certain documents. Since the CEO, Tamenglong failed to furnish the documents till 28.4.2021, a reminder W.T. message was sent on 29.4.2021. As the CEO, Tamenglong still failed to furnish the document, second WP(C) No. 112 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 893 of 2022 P a g e | 11 reminder was sent on 16.7.2021. In response to the W.T. message, the CEO, Tamenglong sent a reply dated 16.7.2021 stating that all the required documents had been furnished to the office of the Manipur Lokayukta on 4.12.2020 in connection with Complaint Case No.3 of 2020 and no data of the said funds are available in the office of the ADC, Tamenglong.

8.1. It is stated that the Superintendent of Police on receipt of reply from CEO, Tamenglong, sent a W.T. message to the CEO to furnish office copy and in the meantime, the Superintendent of Police on learning about the documents seized by Lokayukta wrote a requisition letter addressed to the Chairperson, Manipur Lokayukta, on 19.7.2021 to furnish documents related to 13th State Finance Commission and 14th Finance Commission in respect of ADC, Tamenglong. Further, the CEO sent a reply on 31.7.2021 in response to the Superintendent of Police that office copies are not available in the office of the ADC, Tamenglong.

8.2. It is stated that the Deputy Registrar of Manipur Lokayukta furnished a copy of the preliminary enquiry report of Complaint Case No.3 of 2020 on 26.8.2021. On perusal of the preliminary enquiry report, it was found that the complaint of the WP(C) No. 112 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 893 of 2022 P a g e | 12 complainant as well as the three works were found reflected in the enquiry report of the Complaint Case No.3 of 2020. Therefore, considering the fact that the Manipur Lokayukta had already conducted preliminary enquiry in the same matter on the same cause of action and in view of Section 49 of the Manipur Lokayukta Act, the matter was put up to the competent authority who decided not to proceed further with the Vigilance Case No.14/PE/SP-V&AC/2021 in view of the matter pending before the Manipur Lokayukta and unavailability of relevant documents. Hence, the Vigilance Case No.14/PE/SP- V&AC/2021 was closed on 29.11.2021. The petitioner has no locus standi to approach this Court for restraining the fifth respondent from resigning his service and, accordingly, vigilance integrity clearance was issued on 13.12.2021. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

9. The fifth respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the writ petition filed to prevent the fifth respondent from tendering resignation due to political differences and the writ petition is not a forum for scoring personal scores. Filing of the present writ petition inspite of having full knowledge that the same issue is being investigated by the Manipur Lokayukta is nothing but abuse of process. It is stated that the vigilance WP(C) No. 112 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 893 of 2022 P a g e | 13 enquiry may not be possible to proceed in view of the fact that all relevant records of works in question have been seized by the Manipur Lokayukta. Therefore, in the absence of relevant documents, the Vigilance Department may not be in a position to effectively investigate into the matter. As such, the relief sought in the writ petition cannot be granted. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

10. Assailing the impugned order dated 11.1.2022 issued in favour of the fifth respondent, Mr. L. Sevananda Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents 3 and 4 have committed irregularities such as arbitrary exercise of powers by failing to refer the complaint of the petitioner to the second respondent in case of want of jurisdiction as per Section 8(1)(C) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 and that they have taken a contradictory stand in closing the complaint of the petitioner on the ground of want of jurisdiction on one hand and still exercise the jurisdiction of issuing the impugned vigilance integrity certificate in favour of the fifth respondent on the other hand.

11. Mr. L. Sevananda Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondents 3 and 4 WP(C) No. 112 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 893 of 2022 P a g e | 14 have committed a contemptuous conduct by not complying with the interim order dated 10.12.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.893 of 2021 by issuing the vigilance integrity certificate in favour of the fifth respondent and that the arbitrary exercise adopted by the respondents 3 and 4 violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also it violates the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the petitioner has not been informed of the closure of the preliminary enquiry initiated on the basis of his complaint.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the third respondent illegally issued the impugned vigilance integrity certificate in favour of the fifth respondent on the basis of a colourable closure report which was never brought to the record of this Court and in pursuance thereto the said impugned order dated 11.1.2022 issued by the Government of India and the Government of Manipur thereby accepting the resignation of the fifth respondent and subsequently issuing termination order. The aforesaid act of the Government of India as well as the Government of Manipur in issuing the impugned vigilance integrity certificate in favour of the fifth respondent is arbitrary and unconstitutional and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. WP(C) No. 112 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 893 of 2022 P a g e | 15

13. Per contra, Mr. H. Samarjit, learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondent submitted that since the Manipur Lokayukta already conducted a preliminary enquiry in the same matter on the same cause of action and view of Section 49 of the Manipur Lokayukta Act, 2014, the matter was put up to the competent authority, who decided not to proceed further with the Vigilance Case No.14/PE.SP- V&AC/2021 and unavailability of relevant documents. Hence, the said Vigilance Case was closed on 29.11.2021 and, accordingly, vigilance integrity clearance was issued in favour of the fifth respondent on 13.12.2021. Therefore, there is no arbitrariness issuing impugned vigilance integrity certificate in favour of the fifth respondent.

14. Mr. HS Paonam, the learned senior counsel for the fifth respondent submitted that the present writ petition which has been filed on the basis of the complaint is no longer maintainable, as the respondents cannot act on the basis of a closed complaint. Unless ands until the Vigilance Case is received, no cause of action survive for agitating the present writ petition. He would submit that till date the petitioner has not challenged the closure of the Vigilance Case before any competent Court. Therefore, the present writ petition which is WP(C) No. 112 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 893 of 2022 P a g e | 16 filed on the basis of the complaint is not maintaisnable after the closure of the Vigilance Case registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioner.

15. The learned senior counsel for the fifth respondent further submitted that this Court by the interim order dated

10.12.2021 in W.P.(C) No.893 of 2021 directed that in the event vigilance clearance is given to the fifth respondent, the same shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. Only by misrepresenting the interim order as a restraint order, the petitioner is trying to mislead this Court in order to obtain favourable orders in his favour. In fact, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the resignation and termination of the fifth respondent, as the same being purely service matter.

16. The learned senior counsel for the fifth respondent urged that the petitioner can no longer claim for enforcement of any right on the basis of the complaint filed by him and the writ petition is devoid of merit and that the only intention of the petitioner is to restrain the fifth respondent from tendering resignation so as to prevent him from contesting election in the General Assembly Election. Thus, a prayer is made to dismiss the writ petition. WP(C) No. 112 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 893 of 2022 P a g e | 17

17. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record.

18. Since the impugned vigilance clearance has been issued in favour of the fifth respondent pending W.P.(C) No.893 of 2021, it would be appropriate to first deal with W.P.(C) No.112 of 2022 which has been filed challenging the order dated 11.1.2022, whereby the Government of Manipur accepted the resignation of the fifth respondent and terminated his service with effect from 15.11.2021 AN..

19. On 16.4.2021, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the fourth respondent against the fifth respondent herein, the then Chief Executive Officer of Tamenglong Autonomous District Council, alleging misappropriation of public funds sanctioned for various developmental works under the 14th Finance Commission.

20. According to the petitioner, his name has been included in the work agency list and sanction was accorded for the work, namely development/maintenance of cremation ground/cemetery and construction of drainage/water storm drainage in the name of the petitioner and the entire sanctioned amount had been received by the fifth respondent without the WP(C) No. 112 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 893 of 2022 P a g e | 18 knowledge of the petitioner and without executing works, which tarnished the personal image of the petitioner in the public. Thus, the fifth respondent in connivance with the ADC members has misappropriated the public funds to the tune of Rs.18.02 crore.

21. Further case of the petitioner is that though the fourth respondent registered the case and has made preliminary enquiry into the matter, unbeknownst to the petitioner, his case was closed on 29.11.2021 in collusion with the fifth respondent and, accordingly, by playing fraud a certificate was obtained to the effect that no vigilance case is pending against him and, thereafter, he submitted his resignation, which was erroneously accepted by Government of India as well as the Government of Manipur and his service was terminated with effect from 15.11.2021.

22. It is an admitted fact that based on the complaint, Vigilance Case No.14/PE/SP/V&AC/2021 has been registered and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Police Station, Manipur also examined the petitioner and recorded his statement. It is also admitted the fact that on

5.10.2019, Lungjanang, Ex-Chairman Norathem, Tamenglong WP(C) No. 112 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 893 of 2022 P a g e | 19 and N.C. Kaduanbou, Social Activist, Tamai, Tamenglong District Manipur, have filed a complaint before the Hon’ble Minister for TA & Hills in regard to the misappropriation of funds by the fifth respondent. On 27.10.2020, Gonmei Kuripou and Gailachung Kamei have filed a complaint against the fifth respondent before the office of the Manipur Lokayukta in regard to the financial irregularities and misappropriation of funds in the ADC, Tamenglong committed by the fifth respondent and others.

23. Since the fourth respondent has failed to further proceed with the enquiry, the petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.893 of 2021 before this Court to direct the fourth respondent to complete the preliminary enquiry promptly without any further delay. This Court, by the order dated 10.12.2021 in W.P.(C) No.893 of 2021, passed the following interim order: “Heard Mr.Diganta Das, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel enters appearance on behalf of respondent No.3 and Mr.Niranjan, learned GA appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 2. WP(C) No. 112 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 893 of 2022 P a g e | 20 On request made by Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.3, list the matter on 14th December, 2021. Learned counsel for the respective parties are permitted their additional documents. In the interim, it is directed that in the event vigilance clearance is given to the private respondent No.3, the same shall be subject to the outcome of this writ petition. List the matter again on 14th December, 2021 for consideration of the interim prayer as well as the admission of the writ petition. List the matter again on 14th December, 2021 for consideration of the interim prayer as well as admission of the writ petition. Furnish copy of this order to the learned counsel the parties through respective e-mails/whatsapp.” (emphasis supplied)

24. According to the petitioner, despite existence of the interim order, the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption issued vigilance integrity certificate dated 13.12.2021 in favour of the fifth respondent on the ground that no vigilance case is WP(C) No. 112 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 893 of 2022 P a g e | 21 pending against the fifth respondent and the impugned order dated 11.1.2022 came to be issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Manipur. In the impugned order dated

11.1.2022, it has been stated as under: “No.PF-1/43/2021-DP-DP: In pursuance of Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Government of India vide Notification No.F.No.24012/06/2021-AIS-II dated 11th January, 2022, the Governor of Manipur is pleased to accept the resignation of Shri D.Gangmei, IAS (MN:2016), a member of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) with effect from 15.11.2021. The intervening period i.e. from 15.11.2021 to date of issue of the order shall be treated as ‘dies-non’.

2. Further, the services of Shri D.Gangmei, IAS (MN:2016), shall be deemed to have been terminated with effect from 15.11.2021 (AN).”

25. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the fifth respondent submitted that since the complaint lodged by the petitioner has been closed on 29.11.2021, the issuance of the WP(C) No. 112 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 893 of 2022 P a g e | 22 interim order dated 10.12.2021 in W.P.(C) No.893 of 2021 will not bind the authorities in closing the complaint of the petitioner.

26. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that W.P.(C) No.893 of 2021 has been filed by the petitioner on 4.12.2021 and the Director of State Vigilance Department and the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Manipur have filed an affidavit in the said writ petition stating that the competent authority decided not to proceed further with the Vigilance Case No.14/PE/SP-V&AC/2021 in view of the matter pending before the Lokayukta and unavailability of relevant documents. Thus, the case was closed on 29.11.2021. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, if really the Director of State Vigilance has closed the case on 29.11.2021, he ought to have informed the Court while passing order on

10.12.2021 in W.P.(C) No.893 of 2021. But the respondent Director failed to state anything qua the closure of the Vigilance Case registered against the fifth respondent on 10.12.2021, which clearly shows that it is only an afterthought and behind the back of the petitioner, the Vigilance Case has been closed. This Court finds some force in the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. WP(C) No. 112 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 893 of 2022 P a g e | 23

27. When W.P.(C) No.893 of 2021 was taken up for hearing, neither learned counsel appearing for the Director of Vigilance and Anti- Corruption, nor learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent stated anything about the closure of the Vigilance Case registered against the fifth respondent. If the said fact was brought to the notice of this Court, this Court would not have passed the interim order directing that in the event vigilance clearance is given to the fifth respondent, the same shall be subject to the outcome of this writ petition. Further, W.P.(C) No.893 of 2021 was still pending and the said petition was heard along with W.P.(C) No.112 of 2022.

28. Since the interim order dated 10.12.2021 still continues, the closure of the Vigilance Case registered based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner is unsustainable in the eye of law. Further, pending interim order dated 10.12.2021, the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Manipur issued the vigilance clearance certificate on 13.12.2021. For proper appreciation, the captioned ‘vigilance integrity certificate’ dated

13.12.2021 is quoted hereunder: “With reference to your letter No.Pl- 1/43/2021-DP-DP dated 24th November, 2021 on the above subject, I am to say that WP(C) No. 112 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 893 of 2022 P a g e | 24 necessary enquiry respect of Shri D.Gangmei, IAS has been conducted by the Directorate and found that “No Vigilance Case is pending against the above IAS Officer”.

2. This certificate strictly pertain only to the status of ongoing enquiry in Vigilance Department. This Certificate does not cover cases, if any, pending with CBI, High Power Committee (8nderManipur Public Servants Personal Liability Act) or any other agency of the Government.

3. It is further advised that Commissioner Departmental Enquiry (CDE and Finance Department of Government of Manipur also be consulted by the AD concerned ascertain Departmental Enquiry/High Power Committee proceedings, pending/are being taken up against the above mentioned official(s)/officer(s).”

29. On a reading of the captioned vigilance integrity certificate dated 13.12.2021, it is clear that in the note, it has been stated as under: “NB: This is not to be used as an integrity Certificate.” WP(C) No. 112 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 893 of 2022 P a g e | 25

30. On a further perusal of the certificate dated

13.12.2021, it reveals that though in the subject it has been mentioned as “Integrity Certificate – (Vigilance clearance) thereof”, in the note it has been specifically stated that the said certificate dated 13.12.20221 cannot be used as an integrity certificate. Further, the Director has only stated that “no vigilance case is pending against the fifth respondent”.

31. Since W.P.(C) No.893 of 2021 filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the fourth respondent to complete the preliminary enquiry and interim order dated 10.12.2021 exists, the certificate granted by the Director of Vigilance and Anti- Corruption that no vigilance case is pending against the fifth respondent is unacceptable. Nothing has been produced by the official respondents to show that with the knowledge of the petitioner only, the Vigilance Case was closed. Thus, from the available materials, it is clear that the closure of the Vigilance Case dated 29.11.2021 is without the knowledge of the petitioner.

32. Merely because the documents are with the Manipur Lokayukta and the Vigilance Department is not in a position to effectively investigate into the Vigilance Case based WP(C) No. 112 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 893 of 2022 P a g e | 26 on the complaint lodged by the petitioner cannot be the basis to the Vigilance Case. Since serious allegation of misappropriation has been made against the fifth respondent and others, it is the bounden duty of the Vigilance Department to enquire into the matter and find out the truth. It is not the case of the Vigilance Department that the petitioner has failed to co-operate with the enquiry. Therefore, fourth respondent, simply cannot close the Vigilance Case of the petitioner. Since a copy of the closure report was not served upon the petitioner and without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner the closure was done, the ground taken by the fifth respondent that the petitioner has failed to file an appeal against the order dated 29.11.2021 is not a ground to negative the case of the petitioner.

33. When the Director of Vigilance and Anti- Corruption himself stated that the certificate dated 13.12.2021 is not to be used as an integrity certificate, the Government of India and the Government of Manipur could not have accepted the resignation of the fifth respondent solely based on the certificate dated 13.12.2021. It appears that as per the impugned letter dated 11.1.2022, the resignation of the fifth respondent was accepted with effect from 15.11.2021. When WP(C) No. 112 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 893 of 2022 P a g e | 27 investigation was ongoing on 15.11.2021 and investigation was alleged to have been closed on 29.11.2021, how it could be possible to give effect and accept the resignation of the fifth respondent with effect from 15.11.2021. This has not been clarified and proved either by the official respondents or the fifth respondent. The aforesaid also clearly establishes that the closure of the Vigilance Case of the petitioner dated 29.11.2021 is highly doubtful and before accepting the resignation of the fifth respondent, there was no vigilance integrity certificate available giving a clean slate to the fifth respondent. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the acceptance of the resignation and issuing termination order by the Government of Manipur is arbitrary in nature and thus the impugned order dated 11.1.2022 is not sustainable in the eye of law.

34. As stated supra, the Manipur Lokayukta also took cognizance of this issue and Complaint Case Nos.3 of 2020 and 9 of 2021 in connection with the misappropriation of public fund amounting to Rs.18.02 crore without any work being executed in collusion with the fifth respondent, the CEO, the Chairman and members of ADC, Tamenglong have been registered against the fifth respondent and other officials. WP(C) No. 112 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 893 of 2022 P a g e | 28

35. It appears that by the order dated 7.1.2022, the Manipur Lokayukta expressed its view that there exists prima facie case for investigation and, accordingly, invoking the power and jurisdiction under Section 20(3) and 28 of the Manipur Lokayukta Act, 2014, passed the following directions: “A) A direct recruit IPS Officer (non-Local_ of the rank not lower than Additional SP serving under the State of Manipur is directed to investigate the present cases by exercising all the powers conferred under the Manipur Lokayukta Act, 2014. The name of the IPS Officer will be intimated later after receiving a panel of names within five working days from the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur. The Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur while sending the list of panel of IPS officer may not include IPS officer who is in the Offer List for Central/State deputation for the year,

2022. B) The Preliminary Inquiry Report of the present cases will be treated as Ejahar for the purpose of registration of the case for investigation. As the Preliminary Inquiry Report of the present case is treated as Ejahar/FIR, the Investigating Officer is not required to confine his investigation within WP(C) No. 112 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 893 of 2022 P a g e | 29 the four corners of the Preliminary Inquiry Report. Where the case is to be registered will be intimated after taking a decision on the panel of names received from the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur. C) The Investigating Officer while conducting the investigation will not be under the supervision of his superior officers of the department or the station where the present case is to be registered. It is also made clear that he/she shall conduct the investigation full co-ordination with the Director (Inquiry), Manipur Lokayukta and also that the investigation of the present case is in addition to his normal duty. The Investigating Officer shall take necessary action complete the investigation within a period of six months from the date of passing this order or from the date of receiving the records. D) Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur and Director General of Police, Manipur shall ensure that the place of posting of the assigned Investigating Officer of these cases should not be disturbed without the prior consent of Manipur Lokayukta.”

36. It also appears that by the order dated 2.2.2022, the Manipur Lokayukta while appointing Shri Ravi Choudhari, WP(C) No. 112 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 893 of 2022 P a g e | 30 IPS as an Investigating Officer, directed the Director General of Police, Manipur to ensure registration of the case at the Crime Branch Police Station, Imphal for the matter and also directed the Investigation Officer to report the registration of case at the Crime Branch Police Station to the Manipur Lokayukta through the Director (Inquiry), Manipur Lokayukta without any delay.

37. As could be seen from the records, pursuant to the direction of the Manipur Lokayukta, an FIR, bearing No.3(02)2022 CB-PS under Section 13 of the PC Act and Section 120-B/34 IPC, has been registered against 21 persons, wherein the fifth respondent has been shown as accused no.7.

38. The aforesaid narration of facts would show that apart from the complaint of the petitioner dated 16.4.2021, a Complaint Case No.3 of 2020 based on the complaint of the Gonmei Kuripou and Gailachung Kamei and another Complaint Case No.9 of 2021 were registered and are pending before the Manipur Lokayukta, wherein by the order dated 7.1.2022 i.e. before issuance of the impugned order, the Manipur Lokayukta observed that that there exists prima facie case for investigation against the fifth respondent herein. Thus, ignoring the cases pending before the Manipur Lokayukta, the impugned order WP(C) No. 112 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 893 of 2022 P a g e | 31 came to be passed by the Government of India and the Government of Manipur, thereby accepting the resignation of the fifth respondent and issued the termination order.

39. The argument of the learned counsel for the fifth respondent is that the petitioner could have waited for the outcome of the Complaint Case pending against the fifth respondent before the Manipur Lokayukta instead of filing the present writ petition since the Manipur Lokayukta will come to a conclusion after completion of the investigation on the same issues raised in the vigilance complaint filed by the petitioner. The aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the fifth respondent cannot be accepted for the reason that this Court doubted about the closure of the complaint lodged by the petitioner vide order dated 29.11.2021 and no intimation was sent to the petitioner in regard to the closure of the Vigilance Case. This Court also held that without notice to the petitioner, the Vigilance Case has been closed. In view of the above, the argument of the learned counsel for the fifth respondent that the Manipur Lokayukta will come to the conclusion that there is no bona fide in the complaint cases pending before it cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that as stated supra, vide order dated 7.1.2022, the Manipur Lokayukta came to a WP(C) No. 112 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 893 of 2022 P a g e | 32 conclusion that there exists prima facie case against the fifth respondent and others.

40. The next argument of the learned counsel for the fifth respondent is that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the proceedings of the inquiry, as no legal injury is caused to the petitioner and that the integrity certificate issued in favour of the fifth respondent has not infringed any enforceable right of the petitioner. He added that only those whose fundamental right has been infringed upon can approach the High Court seeking a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the petitioner has no locus to seek for a direction to cancel the vigilance integrity certificate dated

13.12.2021.

41. The argument of the learned counsel for the fifth respondent that the petitioner has no locus standi to institute the writ petition cannot be countenanced for the reason that the petitioner is the complainant and based on the complaint only vigilance case has been registered and when the preliminary enquiry was prolonging, the petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.893 of 2021, wherein an interim order was passed to the effect that in the event vigilance clearance is given to the fifth respondent, WP(C) No. 112 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 893 of 2022 P a g e | 33 the same shall be subject to the outcome of the said writ petition. Thus, the petitioner has role in the enquiry proceedings initiated against the fifth respondent by the Vigilance and Anti- Corruption and he is also affected by the closure of his Vigilance Case vide order dated 29.11.2021. Therefore, his locus standi cannot be questioned and this Court is of the view that the petitioner has locus to file the writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.112 of 2022.

42. For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 11.1.2022 has been issued without considering the alleged certificate dated 13.12.2021 issued by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, as the same is not an integrity certificate issued in favour of the fifth respondent and it has been issued simply stating that no vigilance case is pending against the fifth respondent. The said certification given by the Director of Vigilance and Anti- Corruption that no vigilance case is pending is also highly doubtful since the Vigilance Case registered against the fifth respondent based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner has been closed behind the back of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order dated 11.1.2022 is liable to be set aside. WP(C) No. 112 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 893 of 2022 P a g e | 34

43. Coming to the merits of W.P.(C) No.893 of 2021, in view of the findings arrived at by this Court that the Vigilance Case registered based on the complaint of the petitioner was closed behind the back of the petitioner by the competent authority, the same needs to be further enquired by the authority concerned. Further, the contention of the fifth respondent as well as the official respondents that as the matter was pending before the Manipur Lokayukta and in view of non-availability of relevant documents the Vigilance Case was closed cannot be accepted.

44. At this juncture, the leaned counsel for the petitioner, by placing reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of MP and others v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and others, (2007) 12 SCC 219 submitted that if the action of the authority concerned was not bona fide and/or otherwise unfair, the High Court could exercise the jurisdiction to issue a writ.

45. In Sanjay Kumar Pathak, supra, the Apex Court held thus: “14. If the action of the State was not bonafide and/or otherwise unfair, in our WP(C) No. 112 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 893 of 2022 P a g e | 35 opinion, the Tribunal and consequently the High court could exercise their jurisdiction to issue a writ of or in the nature of Mandamus, as has been sought to be done, but neither any such plea was raised nor the same was otherwise found to be existing.”

46. In the case on hand, as stated supra, the action of the fourth respondent in closing the Vigilance Case without knowledge of the petitioner is unfair and the acceptance of the resignation of the fifth respondent based on the certificate dated

13.12.2021 that no vigilance case is pending against the fifth respondent that too with effect from 15.11.2021 is also unfair.

47. The very reason for lodging the complaint dated

16.4.2021 against the fifth respondent by the petitioner is that the fifth respondent by clouting his authority had illegally awarded work/projects under the 14th Finance Commission to bogus work agencies and maliciously included his name as one of the work agencies without his knowledge and consent and the fifth respondent had also in connivance with the other ADC members, misappropriated the public money by implicating the petitioner as work agency corresponding to the work projects, namely development/ maintenance cremation WP(C) No. 112 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 893 of 2022 P a g e | 36 ground/cemetery and construction of drainage/water storm drainage. Therefore, in order to unearth the truth, the vigilance enquiry needs to be continued, for which the alleged closure of Vigilance Case No.14/PE/SP/V&AC/2021 is to be restored and the concerned authority is directed to investigate/enquire into the matter and file a report before the competent authority for further action. That apart, the simultaneous proceedings pending before the Manipur Lokayukta is not a bar to investigate into the matter by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. It is for the Manipur Lokayukta to proceed with the cases pending on its file and decide the same in accordance with law and this Court has not commented upon the proceedings pending before the Manipur Lokayukta in respect of this issue.

48. In the result, (i) W.P.(C) No.112 of 2022 is allowed and the impugned order dated 11.1.2022 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Manipur is set aside, as the same has been issued without considering the vigilance integrity certificate. WP(C) No. 112 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 893 of 2022 P a g e | 37 (ii) The Vigilance Case No.14/PE/SP/V&AC/2021 registered against the fifth respondent stands revived, as a result setting aside the closure report dated 29.11.2021 of the fourth respondent. (iii) The concerned authority is directed to investigate/enquire into the Vigilance Case No.14/PE/SP/V&AC/2021 and file a report before the competent authority for further action. (iv) In view of direction nos.(ii) and (iii), W.P.(C) No.893 of 2021 is disposed of. (v) There will be no order as to costs. JUDGE FR/NFR Sushil WP(C) No. 112 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 893 of 2022