OKRAM IBOMCHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (DP), GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri B.P. Sahu, the learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Shri N. Kumarjit, the learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The order of suspension dated 13-04-2017 issued by the Deputy Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur is under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) According to the petitioner, he joined the Manipur Health Services (MHS) as a Medical Officer in the year 1983 and after having served in different capacities as the Junior Specialist, the Specialist, the Joint Director and the Addl. Director in the Directorate of Health Services, he was appointed as the Director of Health Service, Manipur vide order dated 06-10-2015 issued by the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, Government of Manipur. All of a sudden, on 13-04-2017 the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division), Govt. of Manipur issued an order of suspension in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 10(1)(a) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 1965"). However, as required under the Rules, 1965, the order of suspension was not reviewed before the expiry of 90 (ninety) days and therefore, the order of suspension is unsustainable to remain in operation after the expiry of ninety days nor was the petitioner given the subsistence allowance under FR 53 despite an application being filed by the petitioner on 18-08-2017. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents to revoke the order of suspension even after the expiry of ninety days, the petitioner is compelled to approach this court by way of this writ petition praying for quashing and setting aside the order of suspension on the inter-alia grounds that under Rule 10(6) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, the order of suspension ought to have been reviewed by the State Government to modify or revoke the same before the expiry of ninety days, failing which the order of suspension had been rendered invalid after the expiry of ninety days; that in a catena of decisions, prolonged suspension orders have been set aside and quashed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Courts in the country; that the period of suspension shall not be mechanically extended unless there exist reasonable cause necessary for the purpose of maintaining fair procedure of departmental enquiry and that the government employee shall not be harassed in prosecution of a malicious, bias and prejudicial frame of mind of the authority as it would amount to violation of his fundamental and legal rights.