IRUNGBAM DAOJI SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR
LAWS(GAU)-1994-7-11
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (FROM: IMPHAL)
Decided on July 11,1994

IRUNGBAM DAOJI SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MANIPUR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

STATE OF PUNJAB VS. KHEMI RAM [REFERRED TO]
S.K.RAJASEKHARISH VS. STATE OF MYSORE [REFERRED TO]
NAWAL KISHORE DUBEY VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)By this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner Shri Irungbam Daoji Singh has thrown a challenge to the departmental proceeding that was drawn up against him by Memo No. 2/152/80-V(D)/P, dated 29th April, 1981 contained in Annexure-A/2.
(2.)The short facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner who was Inspector of School under the Education Department, Government of Manipur retired on superannuation on 1.3.1981 A.D. (Annexure-A/1). But the Respondent No. 1 (State of Manipur) issued a Memo dated 29th April, 1981 forwarding therewith a departmental proceeding drawn up against tine petitioner in accordance with Rule 14 and 15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (Annexure-A/2). It was received by the petitioner on 26.5.1981 and soon after receipt of this communication the petitioner submitted a representation on 8.6.1981 (Annexure-A/3) to the Chief Secretary Government of Manipur with a prayer for revocation/withdrawal of the said Memo dropping the proceeding on the ground that petitioner had already retired on superannuation. But the petitioner was not favoured with any reply. So, the petitioner again submitted another representation to the Chief Minister, State of Manipur for withdrawal of the aforesaid departmental proceeding (Annexure-A/4). But this time also petitioner did not get any response. On the other hand, he got the communication namely, order No. 2/152/80/V(D)/ P contained in Annexure-A/5 whereby respondent No. 2 appointed respondent No. 2 as enquiring authority. Accordingly, respondent No. 2 fixed the date on 26.11.81 for further proceeding of the matter. The petitioner, therefore, contended that such a proceeding after retirement is not premissible and it should be dropped.
(3.)The respondents resisted this writ petition by finding a counter- affidavit wherein it was averred that some time in the second week of December, 1980 a scandal appeared to have taken place in the office of the Inspector of Schools, Central District Zone No. 2 at Porompat in respect of encashment of medical reimbursement bills amounting to Rs. 7,36,123.51 P. during the period from 10.l.80 to 29.11.80. The petitioner was the Inspector of Schools at the relevant time and the preliminary enquiry which was conducted against him revealed that while functioning as Inspector of Schools, Central District Zone No. 2 at Porompat, the petitioner in violation of the financial propriety and the Government's order incurred Rs. 7,42,202.18 p during May to November, 1980 on medical reimbursement bills of employees and he sanctioned bills amounting to Rs. 1,06,423.20 P. only out of the above total sum of Rs. 7,42,202.18 P. in violation of the Government order No. 3/2/80-F(R.M.), dated 1.9.80 of the Finance Department which restricted claims of medical reimbursement by putting a ceiling limit of Rs. 300/- only and also required that the claim exceeding Rs. 300/- be put under signature of the Head of fie Department. It was further alleged that he had also sanctioned 250 bills amounting to Rs. 2,19,211.15 P. in utter disregard and violation of the vaild order bearing No. 14/l-59/79.Ed(Pt)/2, dated 3.2.80. It was thus alleged that while functioning as responsible Government servant the petitioner failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to his duties and thus violated the provisions of Rule 3 of C.C.S. (C, Rules, 1964 and thereby caused heavy pecuniary loss to the Government.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.