Kh. Nobin Singh, J. - (1.) Heard Shri Kh. Tarunkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri R.K. Umakanta, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
(2.) In the present writ petition, there are three main prayers:- (i) To issue a writ of Mandamus by directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the MFS Grade- II w.e.f. 26-07-2008 i.e., the day when his junior incumbents have been promoted to the said post within stipulated period; (ii) To direct the respondents to release his due 25% subsistence allowance for his suspension period i.e., from 16-07-2003 to 08-11-2004 within a stipulated period; and (iii) To direct the respondents to release his due retirement benefits, monthly service pension including gratuity within a stipulated period.
(3.) According to the petitioner, he was a Manipur Finance Service Grade-III (MFS) Officer and at the relevant time, he was given the charge of a Treasury Officer, Ukhrul District. In contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 17-07-2003 issued by the Under Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur. On 29-08-2003 the Director of State Vigilance Commission addressed a letter to the Commissioner (DP), Government of Manipur recommending for initiating a Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner, and nine others, on the allegation that the petitioner passed certain bills of the Zonal Education Officer/ D.I. of Ukhrul for an amount of Rs. 26,90,661/- (Rupees twenty six lakh ninety thousand six hundred and sixty one) only without a Letter of Credit from the Finance Department. Thereafter, the Under Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur issued a Memorandum dated 13-10-2004 for holding an enquiry against the petitioner under the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and accordingly, he was directed to submit his written statement of defence within 10 days therefrom. In exercise of the power conferred under Sub-rule 2 of the said Rule, Shri I.S. Laishram, IAS, Commissioner (DE), Manipur was appointed as the Enquiring Authority to enquire into the charges framed against him. [3.2] On 08-11-2004 the Under Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur issued an order by which the suspension order of the petitioner was revoked with immediate effect without prejudice to the departmental enquiry pending against him. [3.3] On 04-04-2007 a Final Seniority List of MFS Grade-III Officers came to be published wherein the name of the petitioner appeared at Sl. No. 5 and on the basis thereof, a DPC was held for promotion to the post of MFS Grade-II. The case of the petitioner was also considered by the said DPC but his case was kept in a sealed cover as a result thereof, ten incumbents including some of his juniors, were recommended for promotion to the post of MFS Grade-II and in consequence thereof, an order dated 26-07-2008 was issued by the Under Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur promoting them with immediate effect. [3.4] After the enquiry having been completed and on the basis of the findings of the Departmental Enquiry, the Commissioner (DP), Government of Manipur issued an order dated 24-08-2009 by which the State Government decided to recover the said amount of Rs. 26,90,661/- (Rupees twenty six lakh ninety thousand six hundred and sixty one) only from the petitioner and in addition thereto, a major penalty for reduction to lower time scale of pay, post or service, was imposed upon him. Being aggrieved by it, the petitioner filed a writ petition being WP(C) No. 519 of 2009 which was allowed vide order dated 17-08-2012 passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court thereby setting aside both the findings dated 12-04-2007 of the enquiry officer and the said Government order dated 24-08-2009 with the direction to the disciplinary authority to take a fresh decision as regards the charges levelled against him on the basis of the materials already available in the course of the enquiry and to pass an appropriate order. [3.5] In the meantime, on 29-03-2011 the Under Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur issued an order closing the Departmental Enquiry against Shri Athem Muivah who was similarly situated with the petitioner, in the sense that similar charge for passing bills without LOC was made against him. On 09-05-2012 the Under Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (DOPT), Government of India issued a notification by which Shri Athem Muivah was appointed on promotion to the Indian Administrative Service. But by completely overlooking the directions issued by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court and the clarification made by the Department of Education (S), Government of Manipur, the Additional Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur issued an order dated 24-12-2013 imposing a major penalty of reduction to lower time scale of pay, grade, post or service and further ordered that the said amount of Rs. 26,90,661/- (Rupees twenty six lakh ninety thousand six hundred and sixty one) only be recovered from him. Being aggrieved by it, the petitioner filed another writ petition being WP(C) No. 37 of 2014 challenging the legality and correctness of the Government order dated 24-12-2013 which was disposed of on 12-05-2016 by this Court setting aside the said Government order dated 24-12-2013 granting a liberty to the authorities to pass a fresh final order in accordance with law, within a period of three months, keeping in mind the order dated 29-03-2011 issued by the State Government in respect of Shri Athem Muivah. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent No. 1 requesting him to promote the petitioner to the post of MFS Grade-II with retrospective effect and also to release his due arrears for the suspension period. However, on 25-07-2016 the Deputy Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur, in a purported compliance with the directions of this court dated 12-05-2016, issued an order imposing a penalty of censure which has led the petitioner to file the present writ petition wherein notice was issued on 09-09-2016. Despite a number of opportunities being given to the respondents for filing counter affidavit, they have failed to file it and since they have chosen not to file any counter affidavit, the averments made in the writ petition shall be deemed to have been admitted by the respondents in terms of the various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.;