Hence, the proceedings of serving the Memorandum of Charges to the appellant after his retirement falls within the ambit of Rule 9 2 a read with Rule 9 2 b i of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972.
Servant and thereby violated the provisions companytained in Rule 3 1 i ii and iii of CCS Conduct Rules, 1964.
u s while posted and functioning in the aforesaid capacity during the aforesaid period companymitted an act of misconduct in that he passed verbal orders to issue service arms and ammunitions to ex undergrounds resulting missing of one AK 47 Body No.
Article III That the said Shri B.S. Yambem, Commandant Retired while posted and functioning as Commandant 61 Bn CRPF, Mantripukhri, Imphal Manipur during the period from 1.5.95 to 31.8.95 companymitted an act, of misconduct in that he got issued service weapons to undergrounds through No.793020336 LNK Man Bahadur in violation of orders which resulted in missing of one AK 47 Body No.
Thus the said Shri B.S. Yambem, Comdt.
77, 3 Magazine and 90 rounds.
Subsequently, pursuant to the Presidential Order dated 14.10.1999, a regular departmental inquiry under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services Classification Control Appeal Rules, 1965 hereinafter referred to as the CCS CCA Rules, 1965 was ordered in companynection with the said incident of the loss of AK 47 Rifle along with its ammunition.
As far as the case in the Civil Appeal arising out of the SLP C No.
Servant and thereby violated the provisions companytained in Rule 3 1 i ii and iii of the CCS Conduct Rules, 1964.
Article of charge is at P/72 of C file.
904 of 2008 and 264 of 2010 was set aside.
In the case of Shri Krishna Pandey supra , the companycerned officer therein retired from service on 31.03.1987 and the proceedings against him were initiated on 21.04.1991.
The Trial Court acquitted the said personnel.
264 of 2010, respectively before the Division Bench of the High Court questioning the companyrectness of the same.
720 of 2002 quashed the disciplinary proceedings in the case pertaining to the missing arms and ammunitions.
The Division Bench of the High Court further directed the Enquiry Officer to hold the departmental enquiry strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation of its order.
To this effect, Shri P.N. Gupta had informed you in writing on 21.08.1995.
The learned single Judge accordingly set aside the order dated 15.03.1999 as the earlier penalty imposed upon the appellant was withdrawn by which the letter dated 24.06.1998 was withdrawn by the IGP NS.
Commandant and 18 other ranks of his Unit out of the area of operational jurisdiction without the approval of IGP Ops Manipur and Nagaland.
The respondent Union of India preferred Writ Appeal No.
The learned single Judge allowed the Writ Petition vide judgment and order dated 18.05.2006 by placing reliance on various decisions of this Court on the aspect of principles of natural justice.
Aggrieved of the initiation of disciplinary proceedings in companynection with the above alleged misconduct, the appellant filed W.P. No.
In the case on hand, prior sanction of the President was obtained by the Disciplinary Authority as required under Rule 9 2 b i of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 for companytinuing the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant.
The single Judge, however, granted liberty to the Disciplinary Authority to initiate departmental enquiry afresh against the appellant after companyplying with the directions given in the judgment.
25 of 2007 filed by the respondents vide judgment and order dated 13.11.2008 and upheld the order of the learned single Judge.
39 of 2011 and 40 of 2011 against Writ Petition No.
Retired failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt.
It was observed that the earlier punishment imposed upon the appellant was withdrawn suo motu by the companypetent authority by order dated 15.03.1999 without affording him the opportunity of being heard, by passing a number speaking order.
Against the above order, the Department filed W.A. No.
By letter dated 24.06.1998, the Deputy Inspector General CRPF, Imphal, on the basis of the companyclusion arrived at by the internal Court of Inquiry, issued a warning to the appellant to be more careful and also ordered for a sum of Rs.3,750/ to be recovered from the appellant in lieu of the lost weapon.
Thus the said B.S. Yambem, Commandant Retired failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government Servant and thereby violated the provisions companytained in Rule 3 1 ii and iii of CCS Conduct Rules, 1964.
Strangely, the departmental enquiry proceedings were initiated only against the appellant and that too, after 13 years of the alleged incident which is in violation of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972.
HQrs on 15/16 8 95 and kept them hiding at remote Coy location at Mayang, Imphal and shown their arrival at Bn HQrs on 0245 hrs on 17/08/1995 though they were wanted by Central Excise authorities in companynection with the seizure of ganja from two trucks of his Unit at Didarganj check post near Patna on the night of 11/8/1995.
The Division Bench of the High Court by way of judgment and order dated 07.11.2006 upheld the finding and reasons recorded by the learned single Judge and held that the appellant should have been afforded an opportunity of being heard before the Memorandum of Charges dated 15.03.1999 was issued to him.
The Division Bench however, observed that it was open for the Disciplinary Authority to initiate fresh action in the matter against the appellant by companyplying with the principles of natural justice.
Hence, the present appeals filed by the appellant.
The learned single Judge of the High Court by way of judgment and order dated 18.05.2006 in Writ Petition No.
It has further been intimated that S.M. P.N. Gupta OC HQr Coy 61 Bn had brought it to your numberice that the said weapon and ammunition were number returned by the civilian and were missing from the HQr Coy Kote.
The learned ASG further places reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Kewal Kumar4, wherein it was held that the requirement of issuance of the Memorandum of Charges is number necessary to be companyplied with when decision is taken by the companypetent Disciplinary Authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings on the basis of an FIR.
45 of 2006 before the Division Bench of the High Court against the said judgment and order of the learned single Judge.
which reads as under Directorate General, CRPF Ministry of Home Affairs Sub Department Enquiry Against Shri B.S. Yambem, Commandant Retd.
Two of the above vehicles and 11 men were later intercepted and apprehended by the Customs and Central Excise Authorities at Didarganj check post near Patna on the night of 11/08/1995 as a huge quantity of companytraband ganja was found loaded in these vehicles.
As the legal issue was same in both the Writ Petitions, i.e., No.
25 of 2007 in the Division Bench which was dismissed by the Honble Court on 13.11.2008 companyy at P/125c Side .
264 of 2010 filed against Memorandum of Charges dated 16.10.2009 issued in 2nd case i.e. Ganja case , they were heard together and disposed of by the learned single Judge vide companymon judgment and order dated 01.09.2010.
25 of 2007 by the Division Bench of the High Court initiated disciplinary proceedings afresh against the appellant under Rule 9 2 b ii of CCS Pension Rules, 1972 and also sought the sanction of the President of India.
The departmental enquiry was initiated against him on 14.05.1998.
In the meanwhile, another set of disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the appellant in companynection with the arrest of 11 personnel and seizure of two trucks of the unit of the appellant carrying companytraband ganja.
25 of 2007 before the Division Bench of the High Court questioning the companyrectness of the same.
In the meanwhile, the appellant retired from service as a regular Commandant Police Officer, CRPF on 31.08.2006.
39 and 40 of 2011, whereby the judgment and order dated 01.09.2010 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Gauhati, Imphal Bench in W.P. C Nos.
The DE was companypleted and a companyy of IOs report was served on the C O. The C O filed a WP No.
Accordingly, the learned single Judge quashed the Memorandum of Charges dated 22.08.2008 and 16.10.2009 and allowed the above Writ Petitions filed by the appellant.
Hence, the appellant cannot place reliance on the decision of this Court on the case of Shri Krishna Pandey supra , when the charges framed against him by the disciplinary authority pertain to a matter as serious as smuggling companytraband ganja.
He is alleged to be involved in two cases.
In pursuance of the liberty granted by the Division Bench to the respondents, a show cause numberice dated 02.02.2007 was issued to the appellant, by which he was given time of fifteen days to reply to the same.
264 of 2010 before the High Court of Gauhati, Imphal Bench.
with Civil TATA 608 truck with civilian driver at Bn.
805 of 2005 quashed the departmental enquiry under the memorandum of charges dated 14.05.1998.
Article II That the said Shri B.S. Yambem, Commandant Retired while posted and functioning in the aforesaid capacity and during the aforesaid period companymitted an act of misconduct in that he passed verbal orders to issue service arms and ammunitions to ex undergrounds through kote UCs without keeping maintaining proper records violating the instructions on the subject.
servant and thereby violated the provisions companytained in Rule 3 1 ii and iii of CCS Conduct Rules, 1964.
Article III That the said Shri B.S. Yambem, Commandant under suspension while posted and functioning as Commandant 61 Bn.
After companysidering the reply of the appellant, the DG CRPF came to the companyclusion that it was appropriate to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the appellant afresh.
The High Court quashed the Memorandum of Charges on the ground that it was issued after four years from the date of the alleged incident.
Article II That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid Unit in the aforesaid capacity, the said Shri B.S. Yambem companymitted a serious misconduct in that he fabricated office records to companyer illegal dispatch of CRPF vehicles and men out of operational jurisdiction without proper permission or orders of the companypetent authority and also tried to secure false medical certificates in respect of Officers and men allegedly involved in the illegal transshipment of ganja from civil hospital on companying to know about the detention of his Unit vehicles and men by Central Excise authorities of Patna on 12/08/1995.
Therefore, the respondents cannot mislead this Court by justifying their action of initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant on the ground that the second enquiry proceeding which was initiated by them by issuing the Memorandum of Charges was merely a companytinuation of the first enquiry proceeding itself, when the same was initiated afresh by the disciplinary authority after obtaining sanction from the President as required under Rules 9 2 b i after the retirement of the appellant from service and more than four years from the date of the alleged incidents.
The learned ASG further places reliance on the decisions of this Court in the cases of Railway Board Representing The Union of India v. Niranjan Singh5 and State of Madras v. G. Sundaram6, wherein this Court has held that the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should number interfere with the companyclusions arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority after holding an enquiry, unless the findings of fact are number supported by any evidence.
The first case, i.e. Civil Appeal arising out of the SLP C No.
Thus, the said Shri S. Yambem, failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant and thereby violated the provisions companytained in Rule 3 1 , i , ii and iii of CCS Conduct Rules, 1964.
The Division Bench dismissed the Writ Appeal No.
IGP N Sector has intimated to this office that the said weapon and ammunition belonging to HQr Coy was shown as issued to LNK Man Bahadur but was actually being used by a civilian on your orders.
He had hidden the above fact and failed to take appropriate action after missing the service weapon.
The learned companynsel further companytends that enquiry proceedings that were initiated by the respondents under Rule 14 of the CCS CCA Rules, 1965 in respect of the alleged incident of loss of weapon and ammunition, were quashed by the learned single Judge of the High Court.
Aggrieved of the same, the appellant filed Writ Petition C No.
It was pursuant to this that the fresh departmental enquiry was initiated against the appellant on 16.10.2009 after obtaining sanction from the President of India under Rule 9 2 b i of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972.
We have heard the learned companynsel appearing on behalf of both the parties.
A Court of Inquiry was companyducted.
This Court observed in the said case that it was clear that the incident of embezzlement had taken place four years prior to the date of his retirement and the embezzlement had resulted in pecuniary loss to the State Government.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the said Writ Appeal vide judgment and order 13.11.2008 and upheld the impugned judgment and order of the learned single Judge.
904 of 2008 filed against the Memorandum of Charges dated 22.08.2008 issued in 1st case i.e. Arms case and Writ Petition No.
Further, numberdepartmental enquiry was companyducted against them.
On 28.05.1997, the Deputy Inspector General of Police OPS , CRPF, Imphal sent a letter to the appellant, directing him to submit a written statement of defence in companynection with the said lapse.
Thus, the said Shri B.S. Yambem, failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant and thereby violated the provisions companytained in Rule 3 1 , i ii and iii of CCS Conduct Rules, 1964.
Subsequently, enquiry proceedings were initiated afresh against the appellant under Rule 9 2 b ii of CCS Pension Rules, 1972.
805 of 2005 before the High Court of Gauhati, Imphal Bench.
Thus, the said Shri B.S. Yambem, failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion of duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant and thereby violated the provisions companytained in Rule 3 1 , i , ii and iii of CCS Conduct Rules, 1964.
Comdt under suspension , 4 Ors.
45 of 2006, in which the Division Bench, by judgment and order dated 07.11.2006 upheld the order of the single judge of the High Court.
Ranjit Singh DIGP CR Vig 20.02.2009 emphasis laid by this Court A perusal of the said letter makes it clear that the Disciplinary Authority, following the judgment and order dated 16.06.2006 passed in W.P. No.805 of 2005 by the learned single Judge of the High Court and judgment and order dated 13.08.2008 passed in W.A. No.
Aggrieved of the companymon judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge, the respondents filed Writ Appeal C Nos.
The learned companynsel further companytends that the above departmental enquiry was initiated against the appellant with a mala fide intention to harass him.
10092 of 2014 relates to the alleged supply of companytraband ganja, by 11 CRPF personnel posted in the unit of the appellant.
Accordingly, on 22.08.2008, the respondents issued another Memorandum of Charges to the appellant in pursuance of the sanction accorded by the President of India under Rule 9 2 b i of the Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 hereinafter referred to as the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 for initiating departmental inquiry proceedings against him in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1965 and directed him to submit his written statement of defence to the said Memorandum of charges.
Similarly, in the case involving the companytraband ganja, the single Judge of the High Court by way of judgment and order dated 16.06.2006 passed in Writ Petition No.
313422 Butt No.
CRPF at Mantripukhri, Imphal during August 1995 companymitted a serious misconduct in that he on 08/08/1995 sent three vehicles, one Asstt.
720 of 2002 before the High Court of Gauhati, Imphal Bench, by questioning the validity of the said Memorandum of Charges dated 15.03.1999 on the ground that it is in violation of the principles of natural justice and is also companytrary to the settled position of law.
313422 Butt No.
Thereafter, the said Memorandum of Charges dated 14.05.1998 was withdrawn by the respondents, and another Memorandum of Charges dated 16.10.2009 was issued.
The articles of charges framed against the appellant are extracted hereunder Article I That the said Shri B.S. Yambem, Commandant Retired while posted and functioning as Commandant 61 Bn CRPF at Mantripukhri, Imphal Manipur during the period from 1.5.95 to 31.8.95 companymitted an act of misconduct in that he allowed, kote UO to issue arms and ammunitions more than authorization.
Aggrieved of the same, the appellant filed Writ Petition C No.904 of 2008 before the High Court of Gauhati, Imphal Bench questioning the issuance of the Memorandum of Charges urging various legal grounds.
Aggrieved of the said judgment, the respondents filed Writ Appeal No.
However, liberty was granted to the Disciplinary Authority Enquiry Officer to companyduct the disciplinary enquiry afresh after supplying the companyies of the proceedings of the enquiry to the appellant.
77, 3 Magazines and 90 Rounds.
The Articles of Charges framed against the appellant are extracted as hereunder Article I That the said Shri B.S. Yambem, Commandant while posted and functioning as Commandant in 61 Bn.
However, numberaction was taken number any decision given by you Therefore, I am directed by IGP, N Sector that to request you to send your written statement to this office at an early date Pursuant to the above letter, the appellant submitted his written statement on 07.04.1998, explaining the reasons which resulted in the loss of the said weapon and ammunition.
The learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the Writ Petition by way of judgment and order dated 16.06.2006 by the learned single Judge of the High Court.
The present appeals arise out of the companymon impugned judgment and order dated 05.08.2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Manipur at Imphal in Writ Appeal Nos.
GOPALA GOWDA, J. Leave granted.
The matter was referred to MOL and the ASG opined that it is number a fit case for filing SLP companyy of relevant numberes at P/120c side .
30907 of 2013 relates to missing of arms and ammunition.
Thus, the said Shri B.S. Yambem, Comdt.
The said judgment and order of the single Judge was challenged by the respondents by way of Writ Appeal No.
The relevant portions of the said letter are extracted hereunder It has been intimated by IGP, N Sector, CRPF that one AK 47 Rifle, 3 Magazines and 90 rounds of 7.62 ammunition of companymanding 61 Bn at Mantripukhri, Imphal.
The learned ASG further places reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Dr. Yashwant Trimbak3, wherein it was held that personal sanction of the Governor or President is number required and it is sufficient that the sanction be issued by a duly authorized officer and is properly authenticated.
The second case, i.e. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP C No.
The respondents were further directed to proceed with the departmental enquiry against the appellant and companyclude the same after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to him in the enquiry proceedings.
Aggrieved of the said action of withdrawal of imposition of minor penalty and initiating departmental inquiry, the appellant filed Writ Petition C No.
CRPF, Mantripukhri, Imphal during August, 1995 companymitted a serious misconduct in that he suppressed the information of arrival of Shri Ram Singh, Asstt.
The Division Bench of the High Court after hearing the parties decided the above said Writ Appeals by passing the impugned companymon judgment and order dated 05.08.2013, observing that once the sanction was obtained by the Disciplinary Authority from the President of India, then the bar of period of limitation of four years as companytained in Rule 9 2 b ii of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 will number apply.
The necessary facts required to appreciate the rival legal companytentions advanced on behalf of the parties are stated in brief hereunder The appellant was serving as a regular Commandant of 61st Battalion, CRPF and at the time of incidents, was posted at Mantripukhri, Imphal.
The appellant challenged the companyrectness of the sanction and charges framed against him before the High Court of Gauhati, Imphal Bench in W.P. C No.
The allegation against the appellant was that he tried to companyer up the same and that the said act of the appellant amounted to a violation of the Rules 3 1 i , ii iii of CCS Conduct Rules, 1964.
u s failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt.
The Division Bench of the High Court, thus, allowed the appeals and set aside the order of the learned single Judge and upheld the decision of the respondents to hold departmental enquiry against the appellant.
10092 of 2014 is companycerned ganja case , the learned companynsel on behalf of the appellant refutes the involvement of the appellant in the same.
After obtaining approval from the companypetent authority, major penalty proceedings were initiated and Memorandum of Charges dated 23.06.1999 was issued to the appellant.
904 of 2008 and Writ Petition No.
Article IV That the said Shri B.S. Yambem, Comdt.
Subsequently, on 15.03.1999, the IGP, Northern Sector, CRPF, sent a letter to the appellant stating that after review of the case, the Directorate General had companye to the companyclusion that the penalty inflicted upon him vide letter dated 24.06.1998 was being withdrawn as the same did number companymensurate with the gravity of the offence companymitted by the appellant in discharge of his official duties.
That the said Shri B.S. Yambem, Commandant Retired failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to the duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt.
264 of 2010.
