Shri Lourembam Jila Singh v. State of Manipur

Judgment

1. Shri Lourembam Jila Singh, aged about 67 years old, s/o late L. Ibochouba Singh, resident of Yaiskul Hiruhanba Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District, Imphal West, Manipur. Respondent 2. The Commissioner (Vety. & AH), Government of Manipur. 3. The Joint Secretary (Pension Cell), Government of Manipur. 4. The Accountant General (A & E), Manipur. BEFORE Pro-Respondents

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MV MURALIDARAN

17.08.2022 Sanjay Kumar (C.J.): ORDER (ORAL) [1] The State of Manipur is in appeal, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 17.08.2016 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in WP (C) No. 735 of 2014. By the said order, the learned Judge held that withholding of the pension and retiral dues of the petitioner therein was illegal and directed the State to release the same, as per admissibility, within a time frame. [2] Heard Mr. Athouba Khaidem, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the appellant; and Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1, the writ petitioner. [3] The respondent worked as the Joint Director (Vety.) in the Government of Manipur. He was placed under suspension from service in July, 2006, owing to his incarceration for more than 48 hours in connection with a W.A. No. 51 of 2017 criminal case, viz., VPS Case No. 22 (6) 06, registered under Sections 409, 420 and 120-B IPC & Sections 13(1)(C) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988. He attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on

28.02.2009, while under suspension. Proceedings were initiated against him under the Manipur Public Servants Personal Liability Act, 2006, (for brevity, ‘the Act of 2006’), and, by order dated 17.06.2010, the Principal Secretary (Finance), Government of Manipur, directed recovery of a sum of ₹. 53,16,608/- out of the total misappropriated amount of ₹. 1,88,83,124/- from him. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed WP (C) No. 525 of 2010 before this Court. The said writ petition was allowed on 22.07.2014, holding the order of recovery to be unsustainable as no notice was served upon the respondent and no opportunity was given to him to meet the allegations levelled against him. Liberty was however given to the authorities to start a fresh enquiry in terms of the Act of 2006, by duly providing an opportunity to him to submit his explanation. It was further directed that if the authorities decide to start a fresh enquiry, the same should be concluded as soon as possible and, preferably, within a period of 4 months. It appears that proceedings were initiated afresh under the Act of 2006 but did not culminate within the time period stipulated therein. Owing to the long delay in release of his retiral benefits, the respondent submitted a representation to the authorities to do so. As no action was taken thereupon, he filed the subject WP (C) No. 735 of 2014 before this Court. By judgment and order dated 17.08.2016 passed therein, presently under appeal, the learned Judge observed that it was manifest from the scheme of the Act of 2006 and the Rules framed thereunder that the liability of the public W.A. No. 51 of 2017 servant emanating from his irregular action would first have to be determined before recovery could be effected. As no such determination had taken place in so far as the writ petitioner was concerned, the learned Judge held that withholding of his pension and retiral dues was illegal. In consequence, the same were directed to be released within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. [4] Mr. Athouba Khaidem, learned Government Advocate, would fairly concede that even as on date, there is no determination of any irregular action on the part of the respondent whereby any liability could be fixed upon him. He would however submit that the respondent himself filed a review petition in relation to the order dated 22.07.2014 passed in WP (C) No. 525 of 2010 and that was the reason why the proceedings were delayed. The Court thereupon called for the records relating to the review petition. The respondent filed Review Petition No. 15 of 2015 in relation to the order in WP (C) No. 525 of 2010. He filed MC (Review Petition) No. 12 of 2015 therein to condone the delay of 356 days. However, on 19.09.2019, Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned counsel, sought leave to withdraw the miscellaneous case as well as the main review petition and the same were accordingly closed as withdrawn, vide order dated 19.09.2019. In effect, even if the plea of the authorities is accepted that they did not proceed due to the review petition, though there was no stay therein, there was no hindrance for them after

19.09.2019 in continuing with and concluding the proceedings initiated against the respondent under the Act of 2006. Nearly 3 years have elapsed since then, but the authorities have not chosen to proceed further in the matter. W.A. No. 51 of 2017 [5] Be it noted that the criminal case against the respondent was registered as long back as in the year 2006 and he remained under suspension from service since then till the year 2009, when he retired from service. Till now, there has been no determination of any guilt on his part under the Act of 2006, whereby any recovery can be effected from him. [6] A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to deal with a similar issue in the State of Manipur vs. Miss Ranjana Manohermayum (WA No. 17 of 2020 decided on 29.03.2022). The Division Bench observed therein that the statutory scheme obtaining under the State’s Pension Rules made it clear that the authorities had no power to withhold gratuity and pension even during pendency of disciplinary/judicial proceedings in the event the Government servant was allowed to retire. It was also noted that only after conclusion of disciplinary/ judicial proceedings and rendering of a finding of guilt therein against the Government servant, the question of withholding his/her gratuity and pension would arise. The Division Bench further noted that even if the allegation of misconduct is serious, without the sanction of law and a legal foundation for punitive action, it would not be open to the authorities to withhold the lawful benefits due and payable to a retired employee on the ground that he or she may be found guilty in future of having caused pecuniary loss to the Government. [7] In the case on hand, despite ample time and opportunity being given to them, the State authorities have not chosen to conclude the proceedings against the respondent under the Act of 2006, whereby any liability can be fixed on him. It is not open to them to continue such proceedings ad nauseum at their own sweet will and pleasure at the cost of the unfortunate public servant. A W.A. No. 51 of 2017 quietus would have to be given at some stage in such a situation, as the authorities cannot abuse the power vesting in them by sleeping over the matter endlessly. As that is exactly the situation in which the State finds itself in the case on hand, we find no ground to interfere with the direction of the learned Judge to release the pension and retiral benefits due to the respondent. They shall do so forthwith. The writ appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Though eminently deserving, we deem it appropriate to make no order as to costs, keeping in mind the interest of the public exchequer. Sapana JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE W.A. No. 51 of 2017