Khekhomba Wangkhem v. The Union of India

4. Shri L.K. Haokip, CASO/Commandant, CISF Unit, ASG Guwahati, LGBI, Borjhar, Guwahati, Assam-781015 With W.A. No. 58 of 2021 Respondents about 36 Khekhomba Wangkhem, s/o (L) W. Modhu Singh, at present serving as Deputy Commandant/CASO, CISF Unit ASG, Imphal Airport, having a permanent resident at Chingmeirong East, PO Lamlong & PS Lamphelpat, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795010 years, -Versus- Appellant

1. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi – 110001. W.A. No. 57 & 58 of 2021

2. The Director General, Central Industrial Security Force, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110003.

3. The Assistant Inspector General (PERS), Central Industrial Security Force, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110003.

4. Shri N. Pau Sang Mung, Deputy Commandant/EXE Respondents Proforma Respondent BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MV MURALIDARAN For the appellant For the respondents Date of Order : : : Mr. I. Denning. Advocate Mr. S. Vijayanand Sharma, Sr. PCCG

03.08.2022 Sanjay Kumar (C.J.): ORDER (ORAL) [1] Contesting parties being common and issues being inter-related, these two writ appeals are amenable to a conjoined disposal. W.A. No. 57 of 2021 was filed by the unsuccessful petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 581 of 2019, aggrieved by its dismissal, vide order dated 11.01.2021. W.A. No. 58 of 2021 was filed by the very same petitioner against the dismissal of his earlier writ petition, viz., W.P. (C) No. 1022 of 2018, by a separate order dated 11.01.2021. W.A. No. 57 & 58 of 2021 [2] Heard Mr. I. Denning, learned counsel for the appellant in both the appeals; and Mr. S. Vijayanand Sharma, learned Sr. PCCG, appearing for the respondents therein. [3] W.P. (C) No. 1022 of 2018 was filed by the appellant/writ petitioner challenging the order dated 18.10.2018 issued by the Assistant Inspector General (PERS), Directorate General, CISF Headquarters, New Delhi, transferring him from ASG, Imphal, to ONGC Nazira, Assam. The grounds of challenge were that his transfer was stigmatic in nature, apart from being violative of the prescribed guidelines. However, it was pointed out by the CISF authorities that Para 14 (ii) of Circular No. 14/2015, the guidelines for transfer and posting of Gazetted Officers in the CISF, provided that the Director General, CISF, was empowered to transfer an officer whenever it was felt necessary in public interest and for administrative/operational exigencies and requirements. They further stated that the appellant/writ petitioner was subjected to transfer to enable holding of a preliminary enquiry against him. The relevant office file was produced before the learned Judge in a sealed cover and upon perusal of the same, the learned Judge opined that transfer of the appellant/writ petitioner had been ordered on the basis of an adverse confidential report of a serious nature and to enable the holding of a preliminary enquiry to find out the truth and correctness of the allegations made against him. The learned Judge concluded that a transfer made to facilitate a preliminary enquiry being conducted could not be termed, by any stretch of imagination, to be punitive or stigmatic. The learned Judge therefore held that the appellant/writ petitioner had failed to point out any arbitrariness or illegality in his transfer and dismissed the writ petition. [4] W.P. (C) No. 581 of 2019 was separately filed by the appellant/writ petitioner assailing the Enquiry Notice dated 20.07.2019 issued to him by the CASO/Commandant, CISF Unit, ASG, Guwahati, for conducting a preliminary W.A. No. 57 & 58 of 2021 enquiry into the allegations levelled against him. However, the learned Judge noted that a preliminary enquiry could be held even behind the back of the employee concerned and there was no necessity or requirement in law that the employee should be given a chance to defend himself in such an enquiry. As the authorities proposed to hold a preliminary enquiry by involving the appellant/writ petitioner, the learned Judge found no illegality therein and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. [5] In so far as the transfer issue is concerned, Mr. I. Denning, learned counsel, would inform this Court that the appellant/writ petitioner was thereafter transferred from Nazira, Assam, to Ranchi, Jharkhand, and no challenge was made by him to the said transfer. In that view of the matter, the validity or otherwise of his transfer from Imphal, Manipur, to Nazira, Assam, is rendered purely academic at this stage. While so, Mr. I. Denning, learned counsel, would assert that the adverse findings recorded by the learned Judge in the order under appeal may impact the career of the appellant/writ petitioner. However, we find that the learned Judge did not affix an imprimatur of approval to any allegations or to the material produced in the sealed cover. The learned Judge merely noted the contents thereof and opined that the allegations levelled against the appellant/writ petitioner were serious enough to warrant a preliminary enquiry and, in consequence, his transfer to facilitate such an enquiry could not be held to be illegal. Further, mere filing of an affidavit by the CISF authorities, wherein they used words such as ‘undesirable’, ‘adverse’, ‘adverse confidential report’ and ‘possible corruption’ would not amount to any adverse findings being recorded by this Court against the appellant/writ petitioner. The sealed cover which was placed before the learned Judge was also produced before us. It would be sufficient, at this stage, to make it clear that neither the learned Judge nor this W.A. No. 57 & 58 of 2021 Division Bench has noted anything adverse against the appellant/writ petitioner on the strength of the allegations levelled against him. [6] On 06.07.2022, as sufficient time had elapsed since the dismissal of the writ petitions on 11.01.2021, both sides were asked to ascertain the status of the disciplinary proceedings, if any, initiated against the appellant/writ petitioner. However, today, Mr. I. Denning, learned counsel, and Mr. S. Vijayanand Sharma, learned Sr. PCCG, would inform this Court that no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant/writ petitioner. [7] In that view of the matter, the issue raised by the appellant/writ petitioner with regard to the preliminary enquiry initiated against him under Enquiry Notice dated 20.07.2019 is also rendered purely academic. While so, Mr. I. Denning, learned counsel, would argue that though no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant/writ petitioner, his Annual Performance Assessment Reports (APARs) from 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2020 have been downgraded without giving him an opportunity of hearing and without following the due procedure. That issue, however, does not fall for consideration in these appeals. If the appellant/writ petitioner has any grievance with regard to the said issue, it is for him to take appropriate measures to seek redressal thereof by way of independent proceedings before the competent forum in accordance with law. [8] Leaving it open to him to do so, if so advised, W.A. No. 57 of 2021 and W.A. No. 58 of 2021 are disposed of. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Sandeep JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE W.A. No. 57 & 58 of 2021