Manipur High Court
N. Kaikho Mao vs State Of Manipur & Anr on 10 February, 2022
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
LAISHRAM Digitally signed by
LAISHRAM
DHAKESHORI DHAKESHORI DEVI (Supply.)IN. 1 & 2
Date: 2022.02.10
DEVI 14:57:50 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
(Video Conference)
MC(WP(C)) No. 41 of 2022
N. Kaikho Mao ... Applicant
Vs.
State of Manipur & anr. ... Respondents
With WP(C) No. 114 of 2022 B E F O R E HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH 10-02-2022 Heard Mr. N. Jotendro, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned Advocate General Manipur for the respondents.
[2] The case of the petitioner is that he is serving as Joint Director in the Directorate of (TA & Hills) Government of Manipur and he is going to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 28-02-2022. The petitioner, with an aim for contesting in the ensuing 12th General Assembly Election of Manipur as a candidate, submitted an application dated 22-12-2021 to the Addl. Chief Secretary (TA & Hills) Govt. of Manipur with a request to allow him to retire voluntarily w.e.f. 01-10-2021. When the said application was not considered by the authorities, the petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No. 26 of 2022 for redressing his grievances. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by an order dated 18-01-2022 by directing the Addl. Chief Secretary (TA & Hills) MC(WP(C)) NO. 41 OF 22 WITH WP(C) NO. 114 OF 22 1 (Supply.)IN. 1 & 2 Govt. of Manipur, to consider the application dated 22-12-2021 submitted by the petitioner and to take a decision thereto and issue necessary order within a period of 1(one) week. In compliance with the said order passed by this Court, the Addl. Chief Secretary (TA & Hills) Government of Manipur issued an order dated 02-02-2022 thereby declining the request of the petitioner.
[3] Having been aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed assailing the said order dated 02-02-2022 passed by the Addl. Chief Secretary (TA & Hills) Government of Manipur coupled with a prayer for directing the respondents to issue an order to the effect that the authority had accepted the voluntary retirement of the petitioner w.e.f. 01-01-2022. [4] Mr. N. Jotendro, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that under FR 56 (k)(1) of the FR & SR, it is provided that any Government servant may retire from service after attaining the age of 50 years by giving notice of not less than 3(three) months in writing to the appropriate authorities. In the present case, as the petitioner is going to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation after the end of February, 2022, the petitioner submitted the aforesaid application with a request to allow him to retire voluntarily from service w.e.f. 01-10-2021, however, the respondents have refused to grant the request made by the petitioner in a most arbitrary manner thereby depriving the petitioner of his valuable right to contest in the ensuing 12th General Assembly Election of Manipur. It is also further submitted by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner is going to MC(WP(C)) NO. 41 OF 22 WITH WP(C) NO. 114 OF 22 2 (Supply.)IN. 1 & 2 retire from service within a few days on attaining the age of superannuation, there can't be any difficulty on the part of the authorities to allow the petitioner to retire voluntarily as requested by the petitioner and the denial of such request is very much arbitrary and unreasonable. [5] Accordingly, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 02-02-2022 deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner should be allowed to retire voluntarily from service w.e.f. 01-10-2021, as provided under FR 56 (k)(1). [6] Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned Advocate General Manipur appearing for the respondents submitted that allowing a Government servant to retire voluntarily as provided under FR 56 (k)(1) is subject to certain condition as provided under the proviso 'C' of FR 56(k)(1). For ready reference, the provision of FR 56(k)(1) is reproduced hereunder:
"(k) (1) Any Government servant may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appropriate authority, retire from service after he has attained the age of fifty years, if he is in Group „A‟ or Group „B‟ service or post, (and had entered Government service before attaining the age of thirty-
five years), and in all other cases after he has attained the age of fifty-five years:
Provided that-
(b) nothing in the clause shall also apply to a Government servant, including scientist or technical expert who (i) is on assignment under the Indian Technical and Economic Co-
operation (ITEC) Programme of the Ministry of External Affairs and other aid Programmes, (ii) is posted abroad in a foreign- based office of a Ministry/Department and (iii) goes on a specific contract assignment to a foreign Government unless, after having been transferred to India, he has resumed the charge of the post in India and served for a period of not less than one year; and MC(WP(C)) NO. 41 OF 22 WITH WP(C) NO. 114 OF 22 3 (Supply.)IN. 1 & 2
(c) it shall be open to the Appropriate Authority to withhold permission to a Government servant, who seeks to retire under this clause, if-
(i) the Government servant is under suspension: or
(ii) a charge-sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending; or
(iii) if judicial proceedings on charges which may amount to grave misconduct, are pending."
[7] By referring to the above quoted provision of FR 56 (k)(1), it has been submitted by the learned Advocate General Manipur that the provision under FR 56(k) is controlled by the proviso contained thereto more particularly by proviso 'C'(ii) of FR 56 (k)(1) wherein it is provided that it shall be open to the authorities to withhold permission to Government servant, who seek to retire under this clause, if a charge- sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceeding is pending. In the present case, as a Departmental Inquiry is pending against the petitioner under the Memorandum dated 18-12-2021 issued by the Government against the petitioner, the authorities have refused to accede to the request made by the petitioner for allowing him to retire voluntarily from service.
[8] In view of the above, it has been submitted by the learned Advocate General Manipur that the authorities have acted in terms of the statutory rules and there is no ground for interfering with the decision taken by the Government.
[9] After hearing the rival contentions of the parties and on perusal of the records, this Court is of the considered view that the request of the Government servant, belonging to Group-A & B services or posts, for MC(WP(C)) NO. 41 OF 22 WITH WP(C) NO. 114 OF 22 4 (Supply.)IN. 1 & 2 taking voluntary retirement from service after attaining the age of 50 years by giving notice of not less than 3 (three) months in writing, is subject to the condition that the authorities have the option to withhold such permission after a charge-sheet has been issued and disciplinary proceeding are pending against the Government servant. [10] In the present case, as article of charges has been framed against the petitioner under the Memorandum dated 18-12-2021 (at Annexure-A/6 to the writ petition) and as a Disciplinary Proceeding is pending against the petitioner, this Court cannot find any fault with the decision taken by the Government in refusing to allow the petitioner to retire voluntarily from service and this Court also does not find any ground or reason for interfering with the decision of the Government. [11] In view of the above, the present writ petition fails and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. However, without any costs.
JUDGE Dhakeshori MC(WP(C)) NO. 41 OF 22 WITH WP(C) NO. 114 OF 22 5