Manipur High Court
Smt Chanuleima Pangeijam Aged About 39 ... vs State Of Manipur Through The Principal ... on 30 May, 2025
Author: A.Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A.Guneshwar Sharma
REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
(1) WP(C) No.463 of 2018 with
(2) WP(C) No.457 of 2018 with
(3) WP(C)No.529 of 2018 with
(4) WP(C) No.528 of 2018 with
(5) WP(C) No.1027 of 2018 with
(6) WP(C) No.455 of 2018 with
(7) Crl.Petn No.17 of 2021
[1] WP(C) No.463 of 2018
Smt Chanuleima Pangeijam aged about 39 years old,
D/O P.Jiten Singh of Khuyathong Pukhri Achouba
Mapal (Khuyathong Polem Leikai), PO & PS
Imphhal, Imphal West District, Manipur.
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. State of Manipur through the Principal Secretary/
Commissioner, (Home) Government of Manipur,
Old Secretariat PO & PS Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur 795001.
2. The Director General of Police, Manipur,
Babupara, PO & PS Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur 795001.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Imphal West,
PO & PS Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur 795001.
4. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Singjamei,
i.e. Enquiry Officer, PO Canchipur & PS
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur 795003
... Respondents
WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF
2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 1
[2] WP(C) No.457 of 2018
Smt Chanuleima Pangeijam aged about 39 years old,
D/O P.Jiten Singh of Khuyathong Pukhri Achouba
Mapal (Khuyathong Polem Leikai), PO & PS
Imphhal, Imphal West District, Manipur.
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. State of Manipur through the Principal Secretary/
Commissioner, (Home) Government of Manipur,
Old Secretariat PO & PS Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur 795001.
2. The Director General of Police, Manipur,
Babupara, PO & PS Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur 795001.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Imphal West,
PO & PS Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur 795001.
4. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Singjamei,
(i.e. Enquiry Officer), PO Canchipur & PS
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur 795003.
...Respondents
[3] WP(C) No.529 of 2018
Ms.Rajina Begum, aged about 38 years old,
d/o Md.Siraj Ahamad Khan of Sangai Yumpham,
PO Wangjing PS Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur.
... Petitioner
-vs-
1. State of Manipur through the Principal Secretary/
Commissioner, (Home) Government of Manipur,
Old Secretariat PO & PS Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur 795001.
2. The Director General of Police, Manipur,
Babupara, PO & PS Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur 795001.
WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF
2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 2
3. The Superintendent of Police, Thoubal District,
PO & PS: Thoubal, Thoubal District,
Manipur 795138.
4. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Thoubal,
i.e. Enquiry Officer, PO & PS: Thoubal,
Thoubal District, Manipur 795138.
...Respondents
[4] WP(C) No.528 of 2018
Smt Thounaojam Rosie Devi aged about 39 years old
W/O L.Ibosana Singh of Thoubal Wangma Taba,
Ward No.1, PO & PS Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. State of Manipur through the Principal Secretary/
Commissioner, (Home) Government of Manipur,
Old Secretariat PO & PS Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur 795001.
2. The Director General of Police, Manipur,
Babupara, PO & PS Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur 795001.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Thoubal District,
PO & PS: Thoubal, Thoubal District,
Manipur 795138.
4. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Yairipok,
i.e. Enquiry Officer, PO & PS: Yairipok,
Thoubal District, Manipur 795138.
...Respondents
[5] WP(C) No.1027 of 2018
Aruna Laishram aged about 40 years old, w/o
Sanabam Sunder Singh of Tangkham Makha
Leikai PO Pangei, PS Heingang, Imphal East
District, Manipur.
... Petitioner
Vs
WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF
2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 3
1. State of Manipur through the Principal Secretary/
Commissioner, (Home) Government of Manipur,
Old Secretariat PO & PS Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur 795001.
2. The Director General of Police, Manipur,
Babupara, PO & PS Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur 795001.
3. The Commandant, 9th Indian Reserve (Mahila) Battalion,
Khuman Lampak, PO & PS: Imphal,
Imphal West District, Manipur 795001.
4. The Deputy Commandant (Ops),
9th Indian Reserve (Mahila) Battalion,
Khuman Lampak, PO & PS: Imphal,
Imphal West District, Manipur 795001.
... Respondents
[6] WP(C) No.455 of 2018
Smt Nambram Memtu Devi aged about 39 years old,
w/o Kakchingtabam Budhadev Sharma, Bamol Leikai
Mange Makhong, PO Imphal, PS Porompat,
Imphal East District, Manipur.
... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State of Manipur through the Principal Secretary/
Commissioner, (Home) Government of Manipur,
Old Secretariat PO & PS Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur 795001.
2. The Director General of Police, Manipur,
Babupara, PO & PS Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur 795001.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Imphal East, Porompat,
PO & PS Imphal, Imphal East District,
Manipur 795005.
4. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Imphal East District,
i.e. Enquiry Officer, PO & PS: Porompat,
Imphal East District, Manipur 795005.
WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF
2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 4
... Respondents.
[7] Cril Petn No.17 of 2021
1. Ms.Rajina Begum, aged about 41 years old,
d/o Md.Siraj Ahamad Khan of Sangai Yumpham,
PO Wangjing PS Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipu.
2. Smt Thounaojam Rosie Devi aged about 37 years old,
w/o L.Ibosana Singh of Thoubal Wangma Taba, Ward No.1,
PO & PS Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur.
...Petitioners
Vs
1. The Director, State Vigilance Commission,
Directorate of Vigilance & Anti Corruption,
PO & PS Lamphal, Manipur 795004.
2. The Superintendent of Police,
State Vigilance Commission,
Directorate of Vigilance & Anti Corruption,
PO & PS: Lamphel, Manipur-795004.
3. The Officer-in-Charge/Inspector,
State Vigilance Commission,
Directorate of Vigilance & Anti Corruption,
PO & PS: Lamphel, Manipur-795004.
... Respondents.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the Petitioners :: Mr. L. Anand, Sr. Advocate
Mr. B. Kirankumar, Advocate
For the Respondents:: Mr. M. Devananda, Addl. AG
Ms. N. Jyotsana, Advocate
Date of hearing :: 03.12.2024
Date of order :: 30.05.2025
WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF
2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 5
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
[1] The writ petitions, (6 in numbers) along with Crl Petn
No.17 of 2021, involving same issue, are taken up together for
disposal by this common judgment and order.
Heard Mr. L. Anand, learned senior counsel assisted by
Mr. B. Kirankumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M.
Devananda, learned Addl. AG assisted by Ms. N. Jyotsana, learned
counsel for the State respondents.
WP(C) Nos. 463 of 2018 & 457 of 2018: Chanuleima Pangeijam
[2] Smt. Chanuleima Pangeijam, the petitioner in WP(C)
Nos.463 of 2018 & 457 of 2018, was appointed along with others as
Sub Inspector of Police in the Police Department of Manipur w.e.f.
5.2.2010, under meritorious sports person quota. Petitioner had
undergone 36th and 37th Prescribed Basic Training at NEPA, for a
period of ten months from 6.2.2010 and 17.1.2011. Appointment of
the petitioner was challenged by an unsuccessful candidate by way of
WP(C) No.427 of 2012 on the ground that the certificate of the
petitioner produced in the connected recruitment process was a
forged one. Petitioner in WP(C) No.427 of 2012 had also lodged a
complaint before the State Vigilance Commission, for verification to
find out the genuineness of the sports certificate that was submitted
by the instant petitioner.
[3] The Director General of Police issued Requisition dated
27.11.2008 for appointment of Sub Inspector of Police (Female/Civil)
for direct recruitment. The eligibility qualification, component of
WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF
2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 6
recruitment test and final selection procedure are provided in para 6,
12 and 13 of the notification and the same are reproduced below:
"6. Qualification for Eligibility:
(i) Essential (a) Graduate of a recognised
university.
(b) Minimum Height:
5 feet (Female/General) and
4 feet 11 inches (Female
ST/SC)
(ii) Desirable (a) Knowledge of Manipuri and
Hindi. Preference will be given
to outstanding sportsmen in
National/International sports
and NCC 'C' certificate holders.
(iii) Age (i) Minimum 18 years as on
01.10.2008.
(ii) Maximum 25 years as on
01.10.2008.
(Upper age limit relaxable upto
5 years in case of SC/ST and
upto 3 years in case of OBC
candidates. For meritorious
sportspersons, the same is
relaxable upto 10 years in case
of SC/ST, 8 years for OBC and
5 years for the general
candidate.)
12. Candidates will be tested in the following
recruitment tests:
Total Marks: 100 Full Marks
(i) Physical Efficiency 30 marks
Test
Those candidates who fail to
qualify in two or more events or
fail to secure 15 marks will not
be considered for written test.
(ii) Written Test 100 marks
General Knowledge 50 marks
WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF
2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 7
General English 50 marks
(iii) Viva Voce 20 marks
13. The Final Selection: (Grand Total: 100 Marks)
Selection of Candidates will be strictly on the basis of
performance of PET, Written Test, Viva Voce and subject to
clearing medical test and Police verification."
[4] The Government of Manipur, Department of Personnel
& Administrative reforms (Personnel Division), issued an Office
Memorandum dated 17.10.1998 relaxing the Employment Exchange
Procedure for appointment of Sportsperson to Class-III & IV posts
with a view to provide incentives to the meritorious sportspersons in
the matter of employment under the State Government. The OM
extends the benefit to the sportspersons who have participated in the
International, National, Inter-University, Inter-School games and
national awardees in National Physical Efficiency Drive. The list of 41
games/sports eligible under the OM is listed as Annexure-A-1. The
relaxation of age is up to a maximum of 5 years for general category,
10 years for SC/ST and 8 years for OBC meritorious sportspersons.
The relevant para are reproduced for ready reference:
2. Eligibility:
(a) The following categories of sportspersons shall be considered
meritorious and eligible for consideration for recruitment to
service/posts mentioned in paragraph above.
(i) Sportspersons who have represented a State or the
Country in the National or in the National or International
competition in any of the games/sports mentioned in the
list at Annexure-A-1.
WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF
2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 8
(ii) Sportspersons who have represented their University in
the Inter University Tournaments conducted by the Inter-
University Sports Board in any of the Sports/Games
showing the list at Annexure-A-1.
(iii) Sportsperson who have represented the State
School Teams in the National Sports/Games for Federation
in any of the games/sports shown in the list at Annexure-
A-1. Not more than 10 years before, on the date of
selection.
(iv) Sportspersons who have been awarded National
Awards in Physical Efficiency under the National Physical
Efficiency Drive.
(b) No such Appointment can be made unless the candidate is,
in all respects, eligible for appointment to the post applied for
and in particular in regard to age, education qualification and
experience prescribed except to the extent relaxations thereof
have been permitted in respect of a class/category of persons to
which the application belongs.
3. Post to which Applicable:
(a) Meritorious sportspersons may be considered for
appointment to any post in Class-III or Class-IV which, under
the Recruitment Rules applicable thereto, is required or
permitted to be filled by direct recruitment.
(b) In making appointment to any post under the
Government by promotion, no preference shall be given to
meritorious sportspersons though that fact may be taken into
account in assessing the overall merit.
7. List of Games/Sports:
WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF
2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 9
List of games/sports which qualifies meritorious sports for
consideration for appointment under the scheme is appended as
Annexure-A-1.
8. There shall be relaxation in upper age limit up to a
maximum of 5 years in the case of General Categories, 10 years
in the case of those belonging to Schedule Castes and Schedule
Tribes and 8 years in the case of OBCs for the purpose of
appointment of meritorious sports persons.
9. The following are the competent authorities to award
certificate for consideration for appointment under this scheme.
Sl.No. Competition Authority Awarding Forms in
Certificates which is to
be awarded
1. International Secretary of the
National Federation
I
of the Game
concerned
2. National Secretary of the
National Federation
II
or Secretary of the
State Association of
the Game
concerned
3. Inter-University Dean of sports or
Tournaments other Officer in
III
over-all charge of
Sports of the
University
concerned
4. National/Sports/ Director(Youth
Games for Schools Affairs & Sports) of
IV
the State concerned
5. Physical Efficiency Secretary or other
Drive Officer in overall
V
charge of physical
efficiency in the
Ministry of
WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF
2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 10
Education & Social
Welfare, Govt. of
India
Lists of Games/Sports which Qualify Meritorious Sports
Persons for Consideration for Appointment to Group
'C'/'D' Posts under Central Govt.
.........................................
21. KABADDI ..........................................
33. TABLE TENNIS
34. TAEKWONDO .............................................
[5] The five petitioners in these batch of cases, i.e., (i) WP(C) No.463 of 2018: Chanuleima Pangeibam; (ii) WP(C) No.529 of 2018: Rajina Begum; (iii) WP(C) No.528 of 2018: Thounaojam Rosie Devi; (iv) WP(C) No.1027 of 2018: Aruna Laishram; & (v) WP(C) No.455 of 2018: Nambram Memtu Devi were included in the select list dated 30.01.2010 of 72 candidates for appointment as Sub Inspector (Female/Civil) and vide order dated 05.02.2010, the common appointment order was issued by the Director General of Police, Manipur. There were some complaints against these petitioners and hence the Vigilance Department started inquiry against these petitioners.
[6] It is stated that the State Vigilance Commission proceeded with an enquiry in pursuance of the complaint made and submitted to the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur its finding vide recommendation/Report Vigilance Case No.20/V/SP- V/2012/763 dated 31.12.2013 recommending the five women Sub Inspectors of Police from service. The relevant portion of the Vigilance Report dated 31.12.2013 is reproduced below:
WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 11 "...... As per the said form, the eligibility criteria for the posts with regard to age and meritorious sports is as under:
(i) Age- Minimum 18 years as on 01.10.2008 Maximum 25 years as on 01.10.2008 (Upper age limit relaxable upto 5 years in case SC/ST candidates and upto 3 years in case of OBC candidates. For meritorious sports person the same is relaxable upto 10 years in case of SC/ST, 8 years for OBC and 5 years for the general general candidates.) Further, it is also observed that as per educational certificates produced by the said 5 candidates, their dates of birth are as under:
(i) Chanuleima Pangeijam - 08.03.1979
(ii) Th. Rosie Devi - 01.03.1980
(iii) Aruna Laishram - 12.01.1978
(iv) N. Memtu Devi - 01.03.1978
(v) Miss Rajina Begum - 01.02.1980
Thus, the ages of the above mentioned candidates had already attained/crossed 25 years as on 01.10.2008. As such they are not eligible for the said post of SI (Female & Civil) with regard to their ages.
However, the said five candidates were found to have possessed OBC and Sports Certificates. And the upper age limit relaxation for the candidates who are OBC as well as meritorious sportspersons is 8 years and as such the maximum age limit of the candidates who are OBC as well as meritorious sportspersons is (25 + 8) = 33 years as on 01.10.2008 to be eligible for the said appointment of SIs (Female & Civil). Since the ages of the 5 WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 12 candidates were below 33 years as on 01.10.2008, they were eligible candidates for the said post of SIs.
On further enquiry, the sports certificates possessed by the said 5 candidates are found as under noted against their names-
Sl. No. Name of the Particulars of the certificates of
candidates honour/participation
1. Chanuleima Certificate of honour for
Pangeijam participation in the 18 National
th
Taekwondo Championship, 2007
held at the Vijaya Indoor Hall,
Berhampur (Ganjan), Orissa on
25th to 27th December, 2007 in
59-63 kg category.
2. Th. Rosie Devi Certificate of representation in
the 57th Sr. National & Inter State
Table Tennis Championship,
1995 (Men & Women) held in
Pondicherry from 10th to 16th
January, 1996.
3. Aruna Laishram Certificate of participation in the
20th Sr. Male & Female National
Taekwondo Championships held
on 3rd & 4th of Feb. 2001 at SAI
Stadium, Salt Lake, Kolkota in
the medium category.
4. N. Memtu Devi Certificate of honour for
participation in the 1 National
st
Taekwondo Poomse & Breaking
Competition & 1st All India Open
Taekwondo Championship, 2002
held on the 25th Oct. to 27th Oct.
2002 at the Standard College,
Kongba, Imphal in the 49/53 kg
category.
5. Miss Rajina Souvenir Certificate for
Begum participation in the 3 Circle
rd
Style National Kabaddi
Championship Men & Women
held at Srikaranpur District,
WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF
2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 13
Sriganganagar (Rajasthan) from
the 29th Feb. to 2nd March, 2004.
..................................................................................................... Hence, this Commission recommend to initiate necessary steps for removal of all five SIs from service."
The reasons given for recommending removal from services on the finding that the sports certificates produced by these five women SIs are fake and as such they are not entitled to age relaxation under OBC meritorious category and cannot be 'considered as meritorious sportsperson in the said recruitment'.
[7] One Elangbam Babina Devi filed writ petition before this Court being WP(C) No. 427 of 2012 challenging the selection of these 5 women SIs on meritorious sports persons category on the ground that the sports certificates produced by them were fake. Similarly, one Laishram Sanatombi Devi also filed another writ petition being WP(C) No. 280 of 2012 praying for the same relief. Thereafter, five women SIs also filed WP(C) No.261 of 2014 challenging the Vigilance Recommendation/Report dated 31.12.2013 recommending their removal from service.
[8] WP(C) Nos.427/2012, 261/2014 and 280/2012 were taken up analogously on 8.11.2016 and this Court disposed the writ petitions without interfering with the appointment of the petitioner and others. However, it was observed that a departmental enquiry be initiated against the petitioner once the State took view that the said certificates relied by the petitioner was false or not genuine based on necessary documents.
[9] While disposing a batch of writ petitions questioning the sports certificates of these five petitioners being WP(C) Nos. 427 of WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 14 2012, 261 of 2014 & 280 of 2012 by a common judgment/order dated 08.11.2016, Learned Single Judge of this Court directed to the appointing authority to examine the certificates used by petitioners (in the present cases) for appointment as Sub Inspectors in Manipur Police are false or not genuine. Once the certificates are found to be false or not genuine, then departmental enquiry has to be proceeded against these five petitioners. Relevant para are reproduced for ready reference and clarity:
"As regards the validity of the State Vigilance Commission, this Court is not going onto the correctness or otherwise of it as the same also involves certain disputed question of facts. Therefore, the only option left before this Court when such cases involving disputed question of facts arise, would be to direct the appointing authority to re-examine the whole issue about the genuineness or otherwise of the certificates relied on by the five Sub Inspector (Female) and if the authorities on the basis of relevant documents or reports come to the definite conclusion that the certificates relied on by the five persons at the time of securing appointments are not genuine, the authorities obviously have to take necessary action them for cancelling their appointments as no public appointment can be secured through invalid certificates. However, since the genuineness of the certificates have been insisted upon by the said five persons and if any adverse action is to be taken against the five persons on the ground that the certificates relied on by them are not genuine or false, obviously they would be entitled to be heard before any adverse action is taken. In other words, this Court would WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 15 clarify that the appointing authorities would proceed against the five persons once it takes view that the said certificates relied by the five persons are false or not genuine based on necessary documents and evidences by initiating proper departmental enquiry against the respondents who have been already appointed on regular basis and as such they have a right to be heard before any adverse action is taken. Accordingly, they shall have all the opportunities to put their case and to prove the genuineness of the certificates relied by them in the departmental proceedings that may be initiated against them.
Accordingly, the authorities are directed to proceed in the manner indicated above which process is expected to be completed within a period of 6 (six) months from today."
[10] From the above directions of this Court in WP(C) Nos. 427 of 2012, 261 of 2014 & 280 of 2012 issued by a common judgment/order dated 08.11.2016, it is ample clear that the appointing authority has first to examine whether the certificates produced by the five Sub Inspectors (Women) of Manipur Police (petitioners herein in connected writ petitions) are genuine or not; and only if it is found that the certificates are found to false or not genuine, then departmental enquiry has to be conducted against them and they will have a right to establish that the certificates are genuine. In short, departmental enquiry has to be initiated only after recording a finding in the preliminary enquiry that the certificates are not genuine. However, the respondent authority directly initiated the departmental enquiry proceedings against the five Sub Inspectors of WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 16 Police (Female/Civil) by issuing separate show cause and charge memorandum, without deciding whether the sports certificates produced by them are fake or not; and presuming the certificates as fake.
[11] The petitioner in WP(C) Nos. 463 of 2018 & 457 of 2018:
Chanuleima Pangeijam was issued with a Memorandum dated 23.06.2017 containing the charge that the Sports Certificate issued by Amateur Taekwondo Association produced by her for participation in 18th National Taekwonda Championship, 2007 held at Brahampur, Orissa and the 1st All India Open Taekwondo dated 25 to 27 December, 2007 was found to be fake.
[12] In the inquiry, the department produced 11 PWs including E. Babina Devi and L. Sanatombi Devi, who filed complaints against the petitioner (and four others) and the petitioner examined herself as DW-1. The Presenting Officer submitted the briefs/arguments dated 03.03.2018 to the Inquiry Authority stating that the allegation against the petitioner for production of unrecognised sports certificate has been established and proved and proposed to take proper steps.
[13] Brief fact in the departmental enquiry against the petitioner is that there are two national federations for Taekwondo. One, Taekwondo Federation of India based in Bangalore and another in Lucknow. All Manipur Taekwondo Association is affiliated to Bangalore based Taekwondo Federation of India and Taekwondo Federation of Manipur is affiliated to the Lucknow based Taekwondo Federation of India. On the other hand, All Manipur Taekwondo Association is recognised by Manipur Olympic Association, while Taekwondo Federation of Manipur is recognised by the Department WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 17 of Youth Affairs & Sports, Government of Manipur and gave cash incentives to medallists from Taekwondo Federation of Manipur who participated in 18th National Taekwondo Championship, 2007 held in Orissa from 25th to 27th December, 2007. The petitioner also participated in the same championship of 2007. Since the petitioner participated in a championship conducted by a federation not recognised by Indian Olympic Association and also represented an association not recognised by Manipur Olympic Association, her certificate was treated as fake and could not be recognised for availing the benefit under the scheme floated by State Government vide OM dated 17.10.1998.
[14] The petitioner, Chanuleima Pangeijam submitted her written brief/arguments dated 17.04.2018. It is stated that the departmental enquiry initiated against her was in contravention of the directions of this Court in the common order dated 08.11.2026 in WP(C) Nos. 427 of 2012; 261 of 2014 & 280 of 2012. As per the direction, the DE has to be initiated only after ascertaining the fact that the certificates produced by the five women Sub Inspectors of Police (including the petitioner herein) are fake and false. It is further submitted that without verifying about the genuineness or not of the sports certificates, the authority has proceeded directly against the petitioners and other on the presumption that the certificates are not genuine. It is primary objection of the petitioner that the DE has been initiated against the direction of this Court. On merit, it is stated that the certificate produced by the petitioner is genuine one issued by Amateur Taekwondo Association for her participation in 18th National Taekwondo Championship, 2007 organised by Orissa Academy of Martial Art and Sports (OMAS), affiliated to Amateur Taekwondo WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 18 Federation. None of the PWs or other evidence could rebut the participation of the petitioner in the championship and her certificate. It is also stated that the petitioner was appointed on merit and stood 2nd in the merit list and was not appointed under sports quota. It is stated that there is no definition of 'recognised sports certificate' and 'unrecognised sports certificate' in the advertisement issued for recruitment. Office Memorandum dated 17.10.1998 also does not stipulate the recognition of the State Association and National Federation by State Olympic Association and Indian Olympic Association. It is submitted that the sports certificate produced by the petitioner is genuine and the charge against her could not be established.
[15] The Enquiry Officer/SDPO, Singjamei submitted Enquiry Report dated 11.05.2015 holding that the certificate produced by the petitioner was Unrecognised Certificate and hence charge was proved and suggested for appropriate steps.
[16] Superintendent of Police, Imphal West/Disciplinary Authority issued Show Cause Notice dated 15.05.2015 to the petitioner stating that the charge against her is proved. The certificate produced by her for participation in 18th National Taekwondo Championship, 2007 organised by Orissa Academy of Martial Art and Sports (OMAS), affiliated to Amateur Taekwondo Federation was not issued by Taekwondo Federation of India recognised by Indian Olympic Association and hence not genuine. The Disciplinary Authority proposed to impose major penalty of removal from service.
During proceeding of departmental enquiry, petitioner continued to discharge duty of Sub Inspector of police enjoying the consequential benefits attached to the rank. In the meantime show WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 19 cause notice dated 15.5.2018 issued by the SP Imphal East District Manipur was served alleging that the certificate produced at the time of recruitment of SI of Police (Female) was not recognized by the Taekwondo Federation of India and the Manipur Olympic Association and hence she was not entitled to be considered for the said post. It is stated that the impugned show cause notice dated 15.5.2018 was indicative of the fact that the authority was pre-determined to cancel the appointment of the petitioner without giving any opportunity of being heard.
[17] The Disciplinary Authority/SP, IW issued order dated 28.05.2028 thereby removing the petitioner from service with immediate effect.
[18] Thereafter, petitioner filed writ petition being WP(C) No.457 of 2018 challenging the irregularity and illegality of the show cause notice dated 15.5.2018 as well as the enquiry report and this Court was pleased to pass order dated 31.5.2018 that "List the matter on 1.6.2018 for consideration of interim prayer along with Cont Cas No.112 of 2017 (for reference only) and till then the impugned show cause notice dated 15.5.2018 shall remain suspended." The interim order has been extended from time to time. The petitioner also filed another writ petition being WP(C) No.463 of 2018 challenging the termination order dated 28.05.2018. Vide order dated 31.05.2018 in WP(C) No.457 of 2018, this Court kept under suspension the Show Cause Notice dated 15.05.2018. Vide another order dated 02.06.2018 in WP(C) No.463 of 2018, this Court also kept under suspension the termination order dated 28.05.2018. The interim orders have been extended from time to time.
WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 20 [19] Petitioner further stated that Office Memorandum dated 17.10.1998 provided that 5% of the Grade-III and IV posts in all the Government Department of Manipur will be reserved for outstanding Sports Meritorious person who are excellent one in the recognized discipline of sports subject to the collection that such reservation shall not exceed 5% of the total accepted reservation. Under the said scheme/Memorandum, nowhere it is mentioned about the discipline of Taekwondo should be recognized by the Taekwondo Federation of India and the Manipur Olympic Association.
[20] It is stated that the genuineness of the petitioner as sports person at National Level having been found positive, in terms of the Office Memorandum regarding scheme of appointment under sports meritorious persons, even the enquiry which has been proceeded against the petitioner should have been confined only to the question as to whether petitioner is a genuine sports person and her standing as a national level sports player is supported by a certificate issued in this regard by a sports organization, the impugned order dated 28.05.2018 as well as the memorandum dated 23.6.2017 having been proceeded contrary to the direction of the Court and having been actuated, is liable to be quashed and set aside. In WP(C) No. 457 of 2018, Smt. Chanuleima Pangeijam challenged the show cause notice dated 25.05.2018 and in WP(C) No. 463 of 2018, she challenged the impugned removal order dated 28.05.2019 as well as impugned memorandum dated 23.06.2017.
[21] In the affidavit in opposition filed by respondent No.3, it is stated that in the common judgment and order dated 8.11.2016 passed in WP(C) No.427 of 2012, 261 of 2014 and 280 of 2012, the direction of the Hon'ble Court was to re-examine the whole issue of WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 21 the 'genuineness or otherwise' of the certificates relied by 5 (five) Sub Inspectors of Police (Female) including the present petitioner and authorities have to take necessary action against them if the certificates are found not genuine (i.e. not fit for consideration for appointment) by cancelling their appointments, as no public appointment can be secured through invalid certificates. In the circumstance, a Departmental Enquiry was initiated against the petitioner being D.E.No.2/2017 dated 13.6.2017 with the finding that the charges levelled against the petitioner was held proved. [22] It is stated that the Certificate of honour of participation in the 18th National Taekwondo Championship 2007 in 59 Kg category from Taekwondo Federation of Manipur represented by Shri P. Olen Meitei as General Secretary is not recognized by the Taekwondo Federation of India and Indian Olympic Association. The recognized association from Manipur being the All Manipur Taekwondo Association represented by Shri Y. Khemchand as President and Shri L. Meghachandra Singh as Secretary affiliated to Taekwondo Federation of India as intimated by the Secretary General, Taekwondo Federation of India vide letter dated 29.04.2013 and affiliated to the Indian Olympic Association letter No.10A/25/627 dated 19.2.2013. The Certificate submitted by the petitioner was not issued by the Secretary of the National Federation, i.e. the Taekwondo Federation of India, appointment of the petitioner is barred by Office Memorandum No.9/1/83-DP dated 17.10.1998 as she had submitted a certificate not recognized by the Taekwondo Federation of India which is affiliated to the Indian Olympic Association. It is further stated that for consideration for appointment of meritorious sportsperson in the State Government Departments, meritorious WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 22 sportsperson are those persons who participated in the National and International Tournaments sponsored by Sports Organisation which is recognized by Indian Olympic Association (IOA) and the Sportsperson who represents the State must be from an affiliated organisation of Manipur Olympic Association as well as the discipline must be within the Schedule list published by Manipur Olympic Association. Since the certificate produced by the petitioner is not recognized by the Taekwondo Federation of India and Indian Olympic Association, cannot be treated as a valid Certificate for consideration for appointment to the post of quota meant for meritorious sportsperson. The impugned order dated 28.05.2018 which removed the petitioner from service was issued in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 66 (IV) of Assam Police Manual Pt-III, petitioner has first to exhaust the statutory remedy available before approaching the Court.
WP(C) Nos. 529 of 2018: Rajina Begum [23] Like Chanuleima Pangeijam in WP(C) Nos. 463 of 2018 & 457 of 2018, the petitioner herein in WP(C) No. 529 of 2018, namely, Rajina Begum was also selected as Sub Inspector (Female/Civil) of Police, Manipur in terms of the requisition/advertisement dated 27.11.2008 published by the Director General of Police, Manipur for direct recruitment. She was appointed vide common order dated 05.02.2010 issued by DGP, Manipur. For claiming relaxation of age, the petitioner produced certificate for participating in 3rd Circle Style National Kabaddi Championship (Men & Women) held at Srikaranpur, Distt. Sriganganagar (Rajasthan) from 29th February to 2nd March 2004 organised by Rajasthan State Kabaddi Association under the auspices of Amateur Kabaddi Federation of WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 23 India. On the complaints lodged by some unsuccessful candidates, the Vigilance Report dated 31.12.2013 recommended removal of the petitioner and four other women SIs from service on the ground that the sports certificates produced by them are fake and fabricated. As mentioned above, vide Common judgment/order dated 08.11.2016 passed by in batch of writ petitions being, WP(C) Nos. 427 of 2012, 216 of 2014 & 280 of 2012, this Court directed the State respondents to verify about the genuineness of the sports certificates produced by these five women SIs and if the same are found to be fake, necessary departmental proceedings may be initiated against them. It may be noted that WP(C) Nos. 427 of 2012 & 280 of 2012 were filed two unsuccessful candidates challenging the appointment of the 5 (five) women SIs (including the petitioner herein) on allegation of producing fake sports certificates at the time of appointment and WP(C) No. 216 of 2014 was filed by 5 (five) women SIs (including the petitioner herein) challenging the recommendation of the Vigilance Department for their removal from service.
[24] It is stated that without verifying the genuineness of the sports certificate produced by the petitioner for participating in 3 rd Circle Style National Kabaddi Championship (Men & Women) held at Srikaranpur, Distt. Sriganganagar (Rajasthan) from 29th February to 2nd March 2004 organised by Rajasthan State Kabaddi Association under the auspices of Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India, the Superintendent of Police, Thoubal issued a Memorandum dated 28.06.2017 for initiating departmental enquiry against the petitioner directly presuming that the petitioner produced fake sports certificate. It is alleged in the memorandum that the petitioner's name was not included in the list of participants for the national championship 2004 WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 24 held in Rajasthan and hence the participation certificate submitted by her is fake.
[25] The Presenting Officer submitted briefs/arguments dated 21.05.2018 to the Inquiry Officer after consideration of the statements of 5 PWs and 4 DWs that the petitioner's name was included in the final list of players for participation in 3rd Circle Style National Kabaddi Championship (Men & Women) held at Srikaranpur, Distt. Sriganganagar (Rajasthan) from 29th February to 2nd March 2004. It is also stated that earlier the petitioner's name was kept as reserve and her name was included in place of one Nanao Devi who did not attend the training for three days.
[26] The petitioner submitted briefs/arguments dated 25.05.2018 to the Inquiring Officer stating that the department enquiry against her was initiated in contravention of the High Court direction to first find out the genuineness of the certificate and to initiate DE only on discovery of the certificate being fake. Without ascertaining about the status of the sports certificate produced by her, the DE was proceeded on the assumption of the same as fake. On merit, she stated that she was included as reserve player in the selection list dated 31.01.2004 issued by Manipur State Kabaddi Association and her name was included in place of L. Nanao Devi as mentioned in letter dated 21.02.2004 sent by Hony Secretary of the Association to the Director, Youth Affairs & Sports, Government of Manipur. None of the witnesses could depose that her certificate of participation in 3rd Circle Style National Kabaddi Championship (Men & Women) held at Srikaranpur, Distt. Sriganganagar (Rajasthan) from 29th February to 2nd March 2004 was fake. It has been prayed that WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 25 the DE against her be quashed, as the charge against her could not be substantiated.
[27] The Inquiry Officer submitted the Enquiry Report dated 04.06.2018 to the Disciplinary Authority/Superintendent of Police, Thoubal stating that the petitioner, Rajina Begum was a meritorious sports person who had participated in various State and National level Kabaddi Championship. However, it was held that the petitioner was not included in the final selection list to represent Manipur in 3rd Circle Style National Kabaddi Championship (Men & Women) held at Srikaranpur, Distt. Sriganganagar (Rajasthan) from 29th February to 2nd March 2004. Accordingly, the charge against the petitioner was established and requested the Disciplinary Authority to take up necessary as deemed fit and proper.
[28] The Disciplinary Authority/Superintendent of Police, Thoubal intimated the petitioner vide letter dated 13.06.2018 to submit any representation to the Enquiry Report and suitable decision would be taken after considering the report.
[29] The petitioner filed the present writ petition, being WP(C) No. 529 of 2018 for quashing the impugned Inquiry Report dated 04.06.2018 of the Enquiry Officer intimated to her by the Disciplinary Authority/Superintendent of Police, Thoubal vide letter dated 13.06.2018 and also the impugned Memorandum dated 28.07.2017, and in the interim not to act on the Inquiry Report dated 04.06.2017 or in alternative to stay the operative portion of the report during the pendency of the writ petition.
[30] Vide order dated 20.06.2018 in WP(C) No. 529 of 2018, this Court directed that the service of the petitioner should not be WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 26 disturbed till next date and interim order has been extended from time to time. In the circumstances, the petitioner is still in service. [31] The main ground taken in the writ petition is that the department enquiry against the petitioner was proceeded in contravention of the High Court directions in order dated 08.11.2016 to first find out the genuineness of the certificate and to initiate DE only on discovery of the certificate being fake. Without ascertaining about the status of the sports certificate produced by the petitioner, the DE was proceeded on the assumption of the same being fake. On merit, the petitioner submits that she was kept as reserve player in the selection list dated 31.01.2004 issued by Manipur State Kabaddi Association and her name was included in place of one L. Nanao Devi as mentioned in letter dated 21.02.2004 sent by Hony Secretary of the Association to the Director, Youth Affairs & Sports, Government of Manipur. It is stated that none of the witnesses could depose that her certificate of participation in 3rd Circle Style National Kabaddi Championship (Men & Women) held at Srikaranpur, Distt. Sriganganagar (Rajasthan) from 29th February to 2nd March 2004 was fake.
[32] The respondent Nos. 3 & 4 filed common counter affidavit stating that the name of the petitioner was not included in the final list dated 31.01.2004 for participation in 3rd Circle Style National Kabaddi Championship (Men & Women) held at Srikaranpur, Distt. Sriganganagar (Rajasthan) from 29th February to 2nd March 2004. It is stated that the two orders, i.e., Ex/D-1 and Ex/D-25 were prepared on same day, i.e., 31.01.2004. Letter dated 21.02.2004 written by Hony. Secretary, Manipur State Kabaddi Association to the Director, YAS, Govt. of Manipur [Ex/D-3] at a later date clarifying the WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 27 inclusion of the petitioner and another letter dated 17.05.2012 are not required. It is stated that the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner did not participate in participation in 3rd Circle Style National Kabaddi Championship (Men & Women) held at Srikaranpur, Distt. Sriganganagar (Rajasthan) from 29th February to 2nd March 2004 was based on relevant materials and the same does not suffer from any infirmity.
[33] The petitioner filed rejoinder affidavit reiterating her stand taken in the writ petition. It is further stated that the Enquiry Officer conducted the inquiry with a pre-mediated mind and wrongly held that the petitioner did not participate in the Kabaddi Championship 2004 without considering the materials on record.
WP(C) No. 528 of 2018: Thounaojam Rosie Devi [34] The petitioner Thounaojam Rosie Devi was also appointed as Sub Inspector of Police (Female/Civil) in terms of the requisition/advertisement dated 27.11.2008 published by the Director General of Police, Manipur for direct recruitment. She was appointed vide common order dated 05.02.2010 issued by DGP, Manipur. For claiming relaxation of age, the petitioner produced certificate for participating in 57th Senior National & Interstate Table Tennis Championships-1995, held at Pondicherry from 10th to 16th January, 1996. After completing basic training at NEPA, Meghalaya, she joined the service as Sub Inspector. On the complaints lodged by some unsuccessful candidates, the Vigilance Report dated 31.12.2013 recommended removal of the petitioner and four other women SIs (the petitioners in these connected writ petitions) from service on the ground that the sports certificates produced by them are fake and WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 28 fabricated. Vide Common judgment/order dated 08.11.2016 passed by in batch of writ petitions being, WP(C) Nos. 427 of 2012, 216 of 2014 & 280 of 2012, this Court directed the State respondents first to verify about the genuineness of the sports certificates produced by these five women SIs and if the same are found to be fake, necessary departmental proceedings may be initiated against them. It may be noted that WP(C) Nos. 427 of 2012 & 280 of 2012 were filed by two unsuccessful candidates challenging the appointment of the 5 (five) women SIs (including the petitioner herein) on allegation of producing fake sports certificates at the time of appointment and WP(C) No. 216 of 2014 was filed by 5 (five) women SIs (including the petitioner herein) challenging the recommendation of the Vigilance Department for their removal from service. However, the appointment order of these 5 (five) women SIs was not disturbed by this Court. [35] Without verifying the genuineness of the sports certificate produced by the petitioner as directed by this Court in order dated 08.11.2016, the Disciplinary Authority/Superintendent of Police, Thoubal directly initiated disciplinary proceeding and issued a Memorandum dated 28.06.2017 to the petitioner alleging that sports certificate produced by her for participating in 57th Senior National & Interstate Table Tennis Championships-1995, held at Pondicherry from 10th to 16th January, 1996 was fake, as no women team for Manipur was sent for the said championship due to some unforeseen reasons.
[36] In the DE, 6 PWs and 5 DWs were examined. After minute examination of the depositions and documents on record, the Presenting Officer submitted brief/arguments dated 14.05.2018 to the Inquiry Officer stating that there was no official record in the office of WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 29 Manipur Table Tennis Association for participation of the petitioner, Thounaojam Rosie Devi in 57th Senior National and Inter State Table Tennis Championship held at Pondicherry from 10th to 16th January, 1996 and recommended for taking up necessary steps. [37] The petitioner, Thounaojam Rosie Devi submitted her briefs/arguments dated 21.05.2018 to the Enquiry Officer praying for dropping the charge against her. It is stated that DE was null and void for not following the directions of this Court in order dated 08.11.2016 in WP(C) Nos. 427 of 2012, 216 of 2014 & 280 of 2012. Both DW-5 & DW-6, who were the Hony. Secretaries of Manipur Table Tennis Association (MMTA) did not deny the Extra Entry/Additional Entry in national championship, but only stated that there was no document in the office of MMTA for participation of the petitioner as Extra Entry/Additional Entry player from Manipur. However DW-5, DW-6 and any other witnesses did not dispute the genuineness of the certificate [Ex.D-6] of participation of the petitioner in 57th Senior National & Interstate Table Tennis Championships-1995, held at Pondicherry from 10th to 16th January, 1996. No endeavour was made in the DE to confirm the genuineness of the certificate from the issuing authority. Nobody disputed the certificate dated 07.02.1996 [Ex.D-7] issued by the Hony. Secretary, MMTA to the effect that the petitioner participated at the Pondicherry Championship, 1995. It was prayed that the charge be dropped as not proved.
[38] The Enquiry Officer submitted its report dated 26.05.2018 to the Disciplinary Authority/Superintendent of Police, Thoubal stating that on examination of the evidence adduced by both parties and the documents on record, it is clear that the petitioner Thounaojam Rosie Devi is in fact a genuine player of Table Tennis WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 30 representing various State Level and National Level Championship and also even winning cash awards from IGP as well ADGP office. It has been held that in the Table Tennis discipline of various championship, there is a process called Extra Entry/Additional Entry through which a player can participate to the said championships even though he/she is not selected for the said championships. However, it has further been held that due to some unforeseen reason, the women team was not sent from Manipur and there was no record of the petitioner participating in 57th Senior National & Interstate Table Tennis Championships-1995, held at Pondicherry from 10th to 16th January, 1996 as Extra Entry/Additional Entry player. Hence, the charge against the petitioner was held as proved. The Disciplinary Authority/ Superintendent of Police, Thoubal informed the petitioner vide letter dated 08.06.2018 to make submission to the enquiry report within a period of 15 days and DA would pass appropriate order after considering the report.
[39] The petitioner filed writ petition being WP(C) No. 528 of 2018 before this Court, inter-alia, praying for quashing the Inquiry Report dated 26.05.2018, the communication dated 08.06.2018 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Thoubal as not sustainable in the eyes of law and also interim prayer not to act upon the Inquiry Report dated 26.05.2018 or in alternative stay of the report dated 26.05.2018 and communication dated 08.06.2018, pending disposal of the writ petition. Vide order dated 20.06.2018 in WP(C) No. 528 of 2018, this Court directed that the service of the petitioner should not be disturbed till next date and the interim order has been extended from time to time. The main grounds in the writ petition are- (i) the inquiry was initiated in contravention of the directions of this Court in WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 31 common order dated 08.11.2016 in WP(C) Nos. 427 of 2012, 216 of 2014 & 280 of 2012 to examine the genuineness of the sports certificate and DE was initiated without determining the authenticity of the certificate, (ii) the charge was held to be proved on mere submission of absence of record of participation of the petitioner as Extra Entry/Additional Entry player, (iii) none of the witnesses deposed that the certificate of the petitioner for participation in 57 th Senior National & Interstate Table Tennis Championships-1995, held at Pondicherry from 10th to 16th January, 1996 was fake, (iv) the inquiry report was prepared with pre-meditated mind to punish the petitioner.
[40] Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 filed separate counter affidavit raising pleas that- (i) the writ petition is pre-mature as the petitioner ought to file response to the enquiry report, (ii) the inquiry was initiated as directed by this Court in order dated 08.11.2016, (iii) there is no record in the office of Manipur Table Tennis Association that the petitioner participated in the Pondicherry Championship, 1955 held from 10th to 16th January, 1996, and (v) the inquiry was conducted in a fair manner.
[41] The petitioner filed rejoinder affidavit reiterating the contentions in the writ petition.
WP(C) No. 1027 of 2018: Aruna Laishram [42] The petitioner in WP(C) No. 1027 of 2018, Aruna Laishram was also appointed as Sub Inspector of Police (Female/Civil) in terms of the requisition/advertisement dated 27.11.2008 published by the Director General of Police, Manipur for direct recruitment. She was appointed vide common order dated 05.02.2010 issued by DGP, WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 32 Manipur. For claiming relaxation of age, the petitioner produced certificate for participating in 20th Male & Female National Taekwondo Championships held on 3rd and 4th February at SAI Stadium, Salt Lake, Kolkota. After completing basic training at NEPA, Meghalaya, she joined the service as Sub Inspector. On the complaints lodged by some unsuccessful candidates, the Vigilance Report dated 31.12.2013 recommended removal of the petitioner and four other women SIs (the petitioners in these connected writ petitions) from service on the ground that the sports certificates produced by them are fake and fabricated. Vide Common judgment/order dated 08.11.2016 passed by in batch of writ petitions being, WP(C) Nos. 427 of 2012, 216 of 2014 & 280 of 2012, this Court directed the State respondents first to verify about the genuineness of the sports certificates produced by these five women SIs and if the same are found to be fake, necessary departmental proceedings may be initiated against them. It may be noted that WP(C) Nos. 427 of 2012 & 280 of 2012 were filed by two unsuccessful candidates challenging the appointment of the 5 (five) women SIs (including the petitioner herein) on allegation of producing fake sports certificates at the time of appointment and WP(C) No. 216 of 2014 was filed by 5 (five) women SIs (including the petitioner herein) challenging the recommendation of the Vigilance Department for their removal from service. However, the appointment order of these 5 (five) women SIs was not disturbed by this Court. [43] Without verifying the genuineness of the sports certificate produced by the petitioner as directed by this Court in order dated 08.11.2016, the Disciplinary Authority/Commandant 9th Indian Reserve (Mahila) Battalion, Imphal directly initiated disciplinary proceeding and issued a Memorandum dated 16.06.2017 to the WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 33 petitioner on alleged charge that the certificate submitted by her at time of appointment as Sub-Inspector (Female/Civil) in Manipur Police for participating in 20th Male & Female National Taekwondo Championships held on 3rd and 4th February, 2001 at SAI Stadium, Salt Lake, Kolkota in the medium category was a fake certificate. It was stated that there was no player under the name of Aruna Laishram representing Manipur team in the said championship held at Kolkota.
[44] In the departmental proceeding, 5 PWs and 2 DWs were examined. Prosecution produced 12 documents and defence also produced 12 documents in their support. The Presenting Officer submitted written brief dated 29.12.2017 to the Enquiry Officer stating that the charge against the petitioner, Aruna Laishram, of producing fake sports certificate in the recruitment for the post of Sub Inspector (Female/Civil) in Manipur Police Department in the year 2009 was established. It is stated that PW-2, the General Secretary of All Manipur Taekwondo Association deposed that the name of the petitioner was not included in the Manipur team participated in 20th Male & Female National Taekwondo Championships held on 3 rd and 4th February, 2001 at SAI Stadium, Salt Lake, Kolkota. It is further submitted that the certificated of participation of the petitioner in the said championship [Ex.D-7] and clarification letter dated 02.12.2001 [Ex.D-8] issued by General Secretary of All Arunachal Taekwonda Association stating that the petitioner represented State of Arunachal in Kolkota Championship, 2001 were not proved.
[45] Aruna Laishram, the petitioner in WP(C) No. 1027 of 2018 submitted written statement of defence dated 26.07.2017 to the Commandant, 9th Indian Reserve Mahila Battalion, Imphal stating that WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 34 she was not included in the player list representing Manipur State for participation in 20th Male & Female National Taekwondo Championships held on 3rd and 4th February, 2001 at SAI Stadium, Salt Lake, Kolkota. However, it is stated that she represented State of Arunachal in the Championship of 2001 held in Kolkotta as sponsored by All Arunachal Taekwondo Association. She was a meritorious sports person in Taekwondo as evident from various certificate produced by her. It is pointed out that the charge was framed against her directly without re-examining the genuineness of the certificate produced by her in contravention of the direction of this Court in common order dated 08.11.2016 passed by in batch of writ petitions being, WP(C) Nos. 427 of 2012, 216 of 2014 & 280 of 2012. It is prayed that she be exonerated from the charge and from awarding any penalty and the departmental inquiry be dropped.
[46] Enquiry Officer, in the Inquiry Report dated 11.04.2018, observed that as per the deposition of PW-2 & PW-3, it was confirmed that the petitioner Aruna Laishram did not represent the State of Manipur in 20th Male & Female National Taekwondo Championships held on 3rd and 4th February, 2001 at SAI Stadium, Salt Lake, Kolkota. The certificate [Ex.P-6] produced by her for participating in 20th Male & Female National Taekwondo Championships held on 3rd and 4th February, 2001 at SAI Stadium, Salt Lake, Kolkota in the medium weight category for claiming age relaxation was proved to be fake. [47] Disciplinary Authority/Commandant, 9th Indian Reserve (Mahilla) Battalion, Imphal furnish a copy of the enquiry report vide letter dated 09.05.2018 and informed to the petitioner to submit any representation before taking final decision.
WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 35 [48] The petitioner submitted her representation dated 18.05.2018 to the Disciplinary Authority on the findings of the enquiry report. It is stated that the departmental enquiry was vitiated as it was initiated without examining the genuineness of the certificate first as directed by this Court in order dated 08.11.2016 in connected cases. The case of the petitioner is that she represented the State of Arunachal in 20th Male & Female National Taekwondo Championships held on 3rd and 4th February, 2001 at SAI Stadium, Salt Lake, Kolkota organised by Bengal Taekwondo Association. It pointed out that none of the officials from Bengal Taekwondo Association and All Arunachal Taekwondo Association was called by the prosecution to ascertain that the certificate produced by the petitioner was fake. It is submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charge of fake certificate. It is stated that this burden cannot be shifted to the petitioner and it is the duty of the enquiry officer to ascertain the genuineness of the certificate. It is requested to reject the findings of the enquiry officer.
[49] Vide order dated 30.05.2018, the Disciplinary Authority/Commandant, 9th Indian Reserve (Mahilla) Battalion, Imphal imposed major penalty of removal from service to the petitioner with immediate effect, as the charge against her of producing fake sports certificate was established.
[50] The petitioner filed appeal before the appellate authority, i.e., The Deputy Inspector General of Police (AP-II/MPTO), Manipur for setting aside of enquiry report dated 11.04.2018 and order of termination dated 30.05.2018 passed by Disciplinary Authority/Commandant, 9th Indian Reserve (Mahilla) Battalion, Imphal. The main grounds of appeal are: (i) departmental enquiry WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 36 was initiated without re-examining the genuineness of the certificate in violation of High Court order dated 08.11.2016, (ii) before proceeding with the enquiry, the views of the appointing authority ought to be taken, (iii) the certificate produced by the petitioner was not re-examined during the enquiry and the finding was based on Vigilance report, (iv) the finding of the Vigilance report was not accepted by this Court and directed to re-examine the genuineness of the certificates and the same was not done, (v) officials of Bengal Taekwondo Association and Arunachal Taekwondo Association were not examine to verify the certificate marked as Ex.P-6 and Ex.D-7, (vi) the onus of calling the officials /authorities of Bengal Taekwondo Association and Taekwondo Federation of India for verifying the signatures, etc. lies on the Disciplinary Authority/Presenting Officer and the same cannot be shifted to the petitioner/Charged Officer, (vii) the explanation of the petitioner that the words 'Manipur' and 'medium weight category' were wrongly written in certificate Ext.P-6 & Ext.D- 7 and the same has been clarified in Ex.D-8 has not been considered in the enquiry, and (viii) the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the order passed by the Disciplinary Officer are based on unreliable evidence.
[51] The petitioner filed writ petition being WP(C) No. 1027 of 2018 before this Court, inter-alia, challenging (i) the impugned order of removal dated 30.05.2018 passed by the Commandant, 9 th Indian Reserve (Mahila) Battalion, Imphal; (ii) the impugned Enquiry Report dated 11.04.2017; and (iii) the impugned Memorandum dated 11.06.2017 as not sustainable in the eyes of law and in the interim, not to act upon the impugned removal order dated 30.05.2018, or in alternative, to stay the impugned orders during the pendency of the WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 37 writ petition. The main grounds raised in the writ petitions are: (i) the departmental enquiry was conducted without verifying the genuineness of the certificate as directed by this Court vide order dated 08.11.2016 in batch of writ petitions being WP(C) Nos. 427 of 2012, 216 of 2014 & 280 of 2012 and hence perverse, (ii) the case of petitioner was that she represented the State of Arunachal Pradesh in 20th Male & Female National Taekwondo Championships held on 3rd and 4th February, 2001 at SAI Stadium, Salt Lake, Kolkota organised by Bengal Taekwondo Association, (iii) the Ex.D-7 & Ex.D-8 were not considered and appreciated properly to the fact that the petitioner actually took part in 20th Male & Female National Taekwondo Championships held on 3rd and 4th February, 2001 at SAI Stadium, Salt Lake, Kolkota, (iv) in the inquiry, the concerned officials of Bengal Taekwondo Association, Taekwondo Federation of India and All Arunachal Taekwondo were not examined by the authority to verify the genuineness or otherwise of the certificate, and (v) the inquiry was conducted with a pre-meditated mind and the findings were perverse. This Court issued notice on 05.11.2018 and gave liberty to the respondents to consider the pending representation and appeal preferred by the petitioner. However, there was no order of stay of the impugned orders and hence, the petitioner was out of service from the date of removal.
[52] Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed counter affidavit stating that the inquiry was initiated as directed by this Court in order dated 08.11.2016 to verify the genuineness of the certificates of the five women Sub Inspectors of Police. As per depositions of witnesses and documents exhibited, it has been established that the petitioner did not represent Manipur in 20th Male & Female National Taekwondo WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 38 Championships held on 3rd and 4th February, 2001 at SAI Stadium, Salt Lake, Kolkota organised by Bengal Taekwondo Association and hence the certificate produced by her was fake. It also contended that the petitioner did not produce officials of Arunachal Taekwondo Association as defence witness in the inquiry. The petitioner also filed rejoinder affidavit reiterating the pleas raised in the writ petition.
WP(C) No. 455 of 2018: Nambram Memtu Devi [53] The petitioner in WP(C) No. 455 of 2018, namely Nambram Memtu Devi, was appointed as Sub Inspector of Police (Female/Civil) in terms of the requisition/advertisement dated 27.11.2008 published by the Director General of Police, Manipur for direct recruitment. She was appointed vide common order dated 05.02.2010 issued by DGP, Manipur. For claiming relaxation of age, the petitioner produced certificate for participating in 1st National Taekwondo Poomes & Breaking Competition & 1st All India Open Taekwondo Championship, 2002 held from 25th to 27th October, 2002 at the Standard College, Kongba, Imphal in the 49/53 kg. category. After completing basic training at NEPA, Meghalaya, she joined the service as Sub Inspector. On the complaints lodged by some unsuccessful candidates, the Vigilance Report dated 31.12.2013 recommended removal of the petitioner and four other women SIs (the petitioners in these connected writ petitions) from service on the ground that the sports certificates produced by them are fake and fabricated. Vide Common judgment/order dated 08.11.2016 passed by in batch of writ petitions being, WP(C) Nos. 427 of 2012, 216 of 2014 & 280 of 2012, this Court directed the State respondents first to verify about the genuineness of the sports certificates produced by WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 39 these five women SIs and if the same are found to be fake, necessary departmental proceedings may be initiated against them. It may be noted that WP(C) Nos. 427 of 2012 & 280 of 2012 were filed by two unsuccessful candidates challenging the appointment of the 5 (five) women SIs (including the petitioner herein) on allegation of producing fake sports certificates at the time of appointment and WP(C) No. 216 of 2014 was filed by 5 (five) women SIs (including the petitioner herein) challenging the recommendation of the Vigilance Department for their removal from service. However, the appointment order of these 5 (five) women SIs was not disturbed by this Court. [54] Without verifying the genuineness of the sports certificate produced by the petitioner as directed by this Court in order dated 08.11.2016, the Disciplinary Authority/Superintendent of Police, Imphal East directly initiated disciplinary proceeding and issued a Memorandum dated 04.07.2017 to the petitioner on alleged charge that the certificate submitted by her at time of appointment as Sub- Inspector (Female/Civil) in Manipur Police in sports quota in the year 2010 for participating in 1st National Taekwondo Poomes & Breaking Competition & 1st All India Open Taekwondo Championship, 2002 held from 25th to 27th October, 2002 at the Standard College, Kongba, Imphal in the 49/53 kg. category is not recognised by the Taekwondo Federation of India and Manipur Olympic Association. It is stated in the charge memo that such certificate cannot be considered for the recruitment to the post of women Sub Inspector (Female/Civil) in the Manipur Police Department.
[55] In the inquiry, 6 PWs and one DW (petitioner herself) were examined and considered many documents including the certificate produced by the petitioner [Ex.D-4] for the 2002 WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 40 Championship at Imphal. The Presenting Officer submitted briefs/arguments dated 12.05.2018 to the Enquiry Officer. PW-5 stated that there were 3 (three) national federations for Taekwondo, first based in Delhi, second in Bangalore and third based in Lucknow. The one based in Lucknow is recognised by Indian Olympic Association (IOA). The Amateur Taekwondo Federation of India (Manipur State Unit) is not recognised by Manipur Olympic Association (MOA). PW-6 stated that All Manipur Taekwondo Association is affiliated to Taekwondo Federation of India and recognised by Manipur Olympic Association. He further submitted that at all India level, there are two governing bodies of Taekwondo discipline, one based in Delhi and another in Lucknow and court cases are pending between these groups. All Manipur Taekwondo Association is recognised by the Delhi based Taekwondo Federation of India and Taekwondo Federation of Manipur is recognised by Lucknow based Taekwondo Federation of India. DW-1/petitioner stated that she participated in 1st National Taekwondo Poomes & Breaking Competition & 1st All India Open Taekwondo Championship, 2002 held from 25th to 27th October, 2002 at the Standard College, Kongba, Imphal in the 49/53 kg. category. She further deposed that the championship of 2002 held at Imphal was organised by Amateur Taekwondo Federation of India in collaboration with Manipur Amateur Taekwondo Association. It is stated that the certificate produced by the petitioner was genuine and was issued by the national federation. The Presenting Officer concludes that there are two national bodies of Taekwondo Federation of India, one based in Delhi and other based in Lucknow. Players of Taekwondo Federation of Manipur are to be recognised as Taekwondo players. It was observed that the allegation WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 41 against the petitioner of producing in-genuine sport certificates has not been established in toto, but the fact of 'recognised' part by Taekwondo Federation of India is still contesting in court of law. [56] The petitioner submitted briefs/arguments dated 18.05.2018 to the Enquiry Officer stating that this Court directed vide order dated 08.11.2016 in batch of writ petitions, first to re-examine the genuineness of the sports certificates produced by the five women SIs and to proceed further, if the certificates are found to be not genuine. However, without ascertaining the genuineness of the certificates, the authority directly proceeded with the departmental proceeding against the petitioner presuming itself that the certificate was not genuine and hence the inquiry has been vitiated. Office Memorandum dated 17.10.1998 stipulates that the only criterion of sports persons should have participated in any National or International or School or University meets and National Awardees in Physical Efficiency. OM does not stipulate that the tournament should be organised by certain association. From the written submission of the Presenting Officer, it is seen that the charge against the petitioner has not been established. It is prayed that the departmental proceeding against the petitioner be dropped and quashed. [57] The Enquiry Officer submitted the report dated 22.05.2018 to the Disciplinary Authority holding that the petitioner was a meritorious sportsperson, but the certificate produced by her is from unrecognised authority. The relevant para may be reproduced for clarity as below:
"The sports certificate produced by the CO at the time of applying for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Female) for the year, 2008 in the Manipur Police Deptt. Was neither awarded by the Secretary of the National Federation nor the Secretary of the State Association of the game concerned, i.e., neither awarded WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 42 by the Secretary of the Taekwondo Federation of India nor by the Secretary of the Taekwondo Association of Manipur which is the only competent authority recognised. However, this does not nullify the fact that the CO was a meritorious sportsperson who have participated in various competitions, moreover her over 9 years in service till date have proved her capability without any doubt.
But the DE so initiated and the charges framed was not to establish whether the documents relied upon the CO was genuine or fabricated, but to find out whether the document relied by the CO was from recognised competent authority. However, as per the statements of the prosecution witnesses the certificate/documents so produced by the CO was not recognised by the concerned authority of the State and for which the charge levelled against the CO is held proved."
[58] The Disciplinary Authority/Superintendent of Police, Imphal East issued last Show Cause Notice dated 27.05.2018 seeking her response to the inquiry report and stated that DA has already 'decided to propose for imposing major penalty of removal from service'.
[59] The petitioner approached this Court by way of a writ petition being WP(C) No. 455 of 2018 challenging the Show Cause Notice dated 27.05.2018 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Imphal East and also the impugned inquiry report of the Enquiry Officer/Addl. Superintendent of Police, Imphal East as not sustainable in the eyes of the law, and in the interim not to act on the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 27.05.2018 or in alternative stay of the impugned notice and inquiry report. The main grounds taken in the writ petition are: (i) This Court directed vide order dated 08.11.2016 in batch of writ petitions, first to re-examine the genuineness of the sports certificates produced by the five women SIs and to proceed further, if the certificates are found to be not genuine. However, WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 43 without ascertaining the genuineness of the certificates, the authority directly proceeded with the departmental proceeding against the petitioner presuming itself that the certificate was not genuine and hence the inquiry has been vitiated. (ii) Office Memorandum dated 17.10.1998 stipulates that the only criterion of sports persons should have participated in any National or International or School or University meets and National Awardees in Physical Efficiency. OM does not stipulate that the tournament should be organised by certain association. (iii)The Presenting Officer is of the opinion that the charge against the petitioner has not been established. (iv) The scheme of meritorious sports persons does not provide that the certificate should be from an association recognised by the Manipur Olympic Association. (v) The petitioner is a meritorious sports person and was given cash incentive by the Department of Youth Affairs & Sports, Manipur for participating in the Championship of 2002 held at Imphal, and (vi) The Disciplinary Authority has a premeditated mind of removing the petitioner from the service as evident from the contents of the impugned show cause notice dated 27.05.2018. Vide order dated 31.05.2018 in WP(C) No. 455 of 2018, this Court issued notice and the impugned show cause notice dated 27.05.2018 was suspended till next date and the interim order has been extended from time to time. In the circumstances, the petitioner is still in service during the pendency of the writ petition.
[60] Respondent No.3 filed counter affidavit stating that the recruiting authority cannot say about the genuineness of the certificate at the time of the scrutiny until and unless the same has been complained by any of the sports person and concerned authority. The show cause notice was based on the report of the WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 44 enquiry officer and the Disciplinary Authority has no bias against the petitioner. The inquiry was initiated on the recommendation of this Court in common order dated 08.11.2016 and the genuineness of the certificate has to be ascertained in the inquiry. The writ petition is premature and the petitioner was given a chance to submit her representation before final order. The petitioner filed rejoinder affidavit reiterating the contentions in the writ petition. Cril. Petition No. 17 of 17 of 2021:
[61] The Director of Vigilance, Manipur submitted a report dated 31.01.2013 to the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur recommending removal from service 5 (five) Sub Inspectors of Police (Female/Civil) from service (the petitioners in the above mentioned writ petitions) on the allegation that the sports certificates produced by them at the time of recruitment and appointment were fake. On the basis of this report and in terms of the direction of this Court in order dated 08.11.2016 in a batch of writ petitions, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against these five women SIs. However, an FIR No. 1(1)2014 VPS u/s 420/468/471 IPC was registered against only three women SIs, namely, (i) Th. Rosie Devi,
(ii) Aruna Laishram, and (iii) Rajina Begum. Two of the three accused persons, i.e., Rajina Begum and Th. Rosie Devi filed the present petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR No. 1(1)2014 VPS u/s 420/468/471 IPC and the same is without any basis and amount to double jeopardy. Vide order dated 24.03.2021, this Court directed not to file charge sheet, if not filed earlier without leave of the court.
[62] The respondents filed counter affidavit stating that the FIR was registered on the basis of vigilance report and the WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 45 investigation for producing forged certificates is still going on. The present petition for quashing of FIR is premature. The petitioners also filed rejoinder affidavit stating that there was no basis for the FIR and the same was to harass the petitioners.
Petitioners' submission:
[63] Mr. L. Anand, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the five petitioners were appointed as Sub Inspector of Police (Female/Civil) on their own merit and not under sports quota as alleged by some unsuccessful candidates. They only used the sports certificates for participating in various disciplines in national championship for claiming age relaxation in the recruitment of women SIs in terms of advertisement dated 27.11.2008 issued by the Director General of Police read with the Office Memorandum dated 17.10.1998 which provided for relaxation of age of 8 years for meritorious sports person belonging to OBC category. Learned senior counsel draws the attention of this Court to contents of Office Memorandum dated 17.10.1998 to emphasise that meritorious sports persons are those, inter-alia, who have represented 'a State or the Nation' in any National or International or All India Inter-School or All India Inter-University meets or National Awardee in National Physical Efficiency Drive.
Certificate in case of 'International meet' is to be issued by the 'Secretary of National Federation' and in case of 'National meet' by the 'Secretary of the National Federation' or 'Secretary of the State Association' of the game concerned. It is pointed out that the OM does not restrict the participation from the Manipur State alone as the words representing 'a State' is used in the OM. Further, the OM does not stipulate that the Association or Federation should be recognised by State or National Olympic Association. The OM also does not WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 46 specify the name of the federations and/or associations which are competent to issue certificate. The only requirement is National Federation and State Association. The OM is silent about the recognised federations and/or associations in case of multiple bodies in a particular game or discipline. It is submitted that any certificate of participation in any national or international meet issued by concerned national federation and state association should be in sufficient compliance of the stipulations of the OM. [64] Mr. L. Anand, learned senior counsel urges that the certificate produced by the petitioners, namely Chanuleima and Memtu for participating in National Taekwondo Championships cannot be treated as fake and unrecognised certificates only on the ground that the certificates were issued by rival national federations not recognised by Olympic Associations. The Office Memorandum dated 17.10.1998 does not give preference to any particular federation/ association when there are multiple federations/associations for a particular game. Recognition by Olympic body is not a criterion under the OM.
[65] The authority treated the certificate produced by Aruna Laishram for participating in national taekwondo championship at Kolkota representing State of Arunachal Pradesh as fake certificate only on the basis that her name was not in the list of players from Manipur. Learned senior counsel has highlighted the fact that the petitioner never stated that she represented the State of Manipur, rather she participated in the championship representing State of Arunachal Pradesh. Clarification of discrepancy in certificate was not considered by the authority.
WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 47 [66] Mr. L. Anand, learned senior counsel submits that Rosie participated in Pondicherry Table Tennis Championship as Extra Entry/ Additional Entry in women event as women team was not sent for Manipur due to unforeseen event. It was wrong to treat the certificate produced by her as fake. In case of Rajina Begum who was kept as reserve player, she was included in the final team for Women Kabaddi team in place of one Nanao Devi. But the authority wrongly treated the certificate as fake.
[67] It is the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the certificates produced by the petitioners cannot be termed as fake or unrecognised. These certificates satisfy the criteria laid down by the Office Memorandum dated 17.10.1998. Prosecution has failed proved that the certificates are fake, forged and fabricated except for the fact that these have been issued by rival federations not recognised by Olympic bodies. It is stated that recognition by Olympic bodies is not a requirement under the Office Memorandum dated 17.10.1998. Representation of any State is permissible as per the OM.
[68] Since the authority has premediated intention to punish the petitioners, the writ petitions are maintainable in the present form in spite of existence of alternative remedy. The inquiry initiated against the petitioners are in violation of the directions of this Court in order dated 08.11.2016 to first re-examine the genuineness of the certificates and if the same are found to be fake, departmental enquiry can be initiated against them. However, in the present case departmental enquiries have been initiated against the petitioner presuming the certificates to be fake. The certificates of the petitioners have been thoroughly verified at the time of recruitment WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 48 by the Selection Committee and State respondents cannot do U-turn at a later stage on the basis of some unfounded complaint after the petitioners rendered service for a considerable long period. It is submitted that the inquires against the petitioners are vitiated on this ground alone and are liable to be set aside. It is prayed that the writ petitions be allowed and the memo of charge, the findings of the inquiry reports, the show cause notices and orders of removal from services be set aside.
[69] Mr. L. Anand, learned senior counsel relies on the following case law in support of his submissions:
(a) Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar: (2009) 12 SCC 78 at Para 35 regarding incomplete charge and charge partially not proved.- "In view of the above, law can be summarised that an enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. The charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges.
No enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. Enquiry has to be conducted fairly, objectively and not subjectively. Finding should not be perverse or unreasonable, nor the same should be based on conjectures and surmises. There is a distinction in proof and suspicion. Every act or omission on the part of the delinquent cannot be a misconduct. The authority must record reasons for arriving at the finding of fact in the context of the statute defining the misconduct".
(b) Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra: (2006) 12 SCC 33 @ Para 9 about premeditated mind. "Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to show cause unless the same inter alia appears to have been without jurisdiction as has been held by this Court in some decisions including State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma1, Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse2 and Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana3, but the question herein has to be considered from a different angle viz. when a notice is issued with premeditation, a writ petition would be maintainable. In such an event, even if the court directs the statutory authority to WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 49 hear the matter afresh, ordinarily such hearing would not yield any fruitful purpose. (See K.I. Shephard v. Union of India4.) It is evident in the instant case that the respondent has clearly made up its mind. It explicitly said so both in the counter- affidavit as also in its purported show-cause notice.
10. The said principle has been followed by this Court in V.C., Banaras Hindu University v. Shrikant5, stating: (SCC p. 60, paras 48-49) "48. The Vice-Chancellor appears to have made up his mind to impose the punishment of dismissal on the respondent herein. A post-decisional hearing given by the High Court was illusory in this case.
49. In K.I. Shephard v. Union of India4 this Court held:
(SCC p. 449, para 16) 'It is common experience that once a decision has been taken, there is a tendency to uphold it and a representation may not really yield any fruitful purpose.' "
(See also Shekhar Ghosh v. Union of India6 and Rajesh Kumar v. D.C.I.T.7)
11. A bare perusal of the order impugned before the High Court as also the statements made before us in the counter- affidavit filed by the respondents, we are satisfied that the statutory authority has already applied its mind and has formed an opinion as regards the liability or otherwise of the appellant. If in passing the order the respondent has already determined the liability of the appellant and the only question which remains for its consideration is quantification thereof, the same does not remain in the realm of a show-cause notice. The writ petition, in our opinion, was maintainable. 1 (1987) 2 SCC 179 : (1987) 3 ATC 319 : AIR 1987 SC 943 2 (2004) 3 SCC 440 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 826 3 (2006) 12 SCC 28 : (2006) 12 Scale 262 4 (1987) 4 SCC 431 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 438 : AIR 1988 SC 686 5 (2006) 11 SCC 42 : (2006) 6 Scale 66 6 (2007) 1 SCC 331 : (2006) 11 Scale 363 7 (2007) 2 SCC 181 : (2006) 11 Scale 409
(c) Laxman Dass v. Union of India: (2022) Live Law (JK) 242 Para 13 & 15 regarding inadmissibility of findings against charge not framed.
[70] In case of quashing of FIR, it is submitted that the basis of the FIR is on the basis of fake certificates produced by the five WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 50 petitioners herein at the time of recruitment of Sub Inspector of Police (Female/Civil) in Manipur Police. In the inquiry against the petitioners, the factum of fake certificates could not be established and hence the very basis of FIR does not exist and the continuation of the criminal proceeding is nothing but an abuse of process of law as held in the celebrated case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal: 1992 Supp (1) SCC
335. Moreover, out of five persons, only three persons are made accused in the FIR and there is total non-application of mind. It is prayed that the FIR and connected proceedings be quashed.
Respondents' Submission:
[71] Per contra, Mr. M. Devananda, learned Addl. Advocate General submits that the writ petitions are not maintainable in the present form as alternate remedy is available under the relevant service rule. He relies on the decisions in the case of (i) Sheela Devi v. Jaspal: (1991) 1 SCC 209, (ii) State Bank of India v. Narendra Kumar Pandey: (2013) 2 SCC 740, & (iii) Union of India v. Major General Shri Kant Sharma: (2015) 6 SCC 773. He further submits that in disciplinary proceedings, the scope of judicial review and interference is very limited and court is not to act as an appellate authority. He cites the following cases in this regard-
(i) State of Andhra Pradesh v. S Sree Rama Rao: AIR 1963 SC 1723, (ii) State of Andhra Pradesh v. Chitra Venkata Rao: (1975) 2 SCC 740, (iii) State Bank of India v. Narendra Kumar Pandey: (2013) 2 SCC 740, & (iv) Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran: (2015) 2 SCC 610. It is submitted that in absence of any patent infirmities, the findings of the inquiry proceeding are not to be interfered by court.
WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 51 [72] Learned Addl. AG submits that the inquiries against the petitioners have been initiated as directed by this Court in order dated 08.11.2016. The factum of genuineness or fabricated certificates can only be established in a proper inquiry and as such the departmental proceedings against the petitioners do not suffer from any infirmity and the same are conducted in compliance of court order. The scope of the Office Memorandum dated 17.10.1998 of providing incentives to meritorious sports persons should be construed keeping in mind the object of the scheme. The incentive is to encourage renounced sports person from Manipur in government jobs. Accordingly, the sports persons should represent in any recognised game on behalf of the State of Manipur and representation on behalf of other States would be outside the purview of the OM. Further, the certificates should be issued by federations/associations recognised by the State Government and Olympic bodies, otherwise any body can come with any certificate issued by some non-existent federations. Accordingly, the petitioners, namely, Chanuleima and Memtu represented Taekwondo championship organised by unrecognised federations and hence their certificates cannot be considered within the meaning of OM. On the other hand, Aruna Laishram represented the State of Arunachal Pradesh in Taekwondo championship and her certificate cannot be considered as valid as per OM. Rosie participated in Table Tennis tournament as Extra Entry and cannot be considered representing the State of Manipur. Regarding Rejina Begum, her name was not included in the list of participants for Kabaddi representing Manipur and her certificate is not valid for consideration of age relaxation. Learned Addl. AG submits that in the inquiry, ample opportunities were given to the petitioners to prove their case and WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 52 they miserably failed to establish that certificates produced by them are admissible for consideration as meritorious sports person as stipulated in Office Memorandum dated 17.10.1998. It is prayed that the writ petitions be dismissed being devoid of any merit. With regard to FIR, it is submitted that other accused can be added during the course of investigation and there is no illegality in the FIR so as to warrant its quashing.
Findings of this Court:
[73] This Court has minutely considered the materials on record, specially the proceedings of the inquires against the petitioners, the submissions at bar and the relevant case law. [74] In the case of Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks: (1998) 8 SCC 1, Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the maintainability of writ petition vis-à-vis availability of alternate remedy as held as follows:
15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field.
WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 53 [75] In the present case, the authority has made up their mind for imposing a major penalty as evident from the impugned show cause notices issued by the disciplinary authorities and they have a premeditated mind. In the circumstances, the writ petitions are held to be maintainable.
[76] The findings against the petitioners can be summarised in the following tabular form for easy understanding:
Sl. WP(C) No. Petitioner Sports Charges Findings No. 1 463/2018 Chanuleima Taekwondo- Fake Unrecognised 457/2018 Pangeijam 34 Certificate Sports Certificate 2 529/2018 Rajina Kabaddi-21 Fake Fake Begum Certificate Certificate (Petitioner not participate) 3 528/2018 Thounaojam Table Fake Fake Rosie Devi Tennis-33 Certificate Certificate (No record of participation for Manipur, but participated as Individual Player) 4 1027/2018 Aruna Taekwondo- Fake Fake Laishram 34 Certificate Certificate (No document for representing Manipur, but represented Arunachal Pradesh) WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 54 5 455/2018 Nambram Taekwondo- Unrecognised Unrecognised Memtu Devi 34 Certificate Sports Certificate (Participated in tournament organised by different federation not recognised by Indian Olympic Association) [77] Contrary to the directions of this Court, the authority has initiated departmental enquiry against the petitioners herein straight without a finding of false or not genuine certificates, presuming itself that the certificates are not genuine. The enquiries against the petitioners are vitiated as conducted in contravention of the clear directions of this Court in the common order dated 08.11.2016 and the same are liable be set aside on this point alone.
[78] The Office Memorandum dated 17.10.1998 issued by the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division), Government of Manipur stipulates Appointment of Sportspersons to Class- III & IV posts in relaxation of the Employment Exchange Procedure. Sportspersons who have represented a State or the Country in the National or International competition in the notified games/sports in Annexure-A/1 of the OM. Participation in Inter- University and Inter-School and National Awardees in Physical Efficiency are also eligible. Competent authorities to award certificates are Secretary of the National Federation in case of International competition and Secretary of National Federation or State Association WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 55 of the game in case of National competition. However, the OM does not provide that the Federation and Association have to be recognised by the India Olympic Association and State Olympic Association. Further, the OM does not restrict that the participation should be confined to representing State of Manipur. Kabaddi, Table Tennis and Taekwondo are listed at serial number 21, 33 & 34 in Annexure-A/1 to the OM and these are the games the petitioners herein produced certificates of participation in national meets. [79] Petitioners, namely Chanuleima Pangeijam and Nambram Memtu Devi participated in national meets of Taekwondo organised by national federation not recognised by Indian Olympic Association. However, their participations and certificates are genuine and the same cannot be treated as fake or unrecognised certificates. Aruna Laishram participated in Taekwondo tournament representing the State of Arunachal Pradesh and she was held to produce an unrecognised certificate as she did not represent the State of Manipur. Since the OM dated 17.10.1998 does not restrict the participation on behalf of the State of Manipur alone, this Court is of the view that the certificate produced by Aruna Laishram cannot be treated as an unrecognised certificate.
[80] From record, it is seen that in the Selection List dated 31.01.2004 issued by Manipur State Kabaddi Association for participation in National Meet 2004 in Rajasthan, the name of Rajina Begum was included in the reserve list for women team. However, she was included in team in place of one L. Nanao Devi as intimated by the Association vide its letter dated 21.02.2004 to the Director, Youth Affair & Sports, Govt. of Manipur. She also got certificate for participation for the tournament jointly issued by National and State WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 56 associations. This Court is of the opinion that the finding of fake certificate against the petitioner Rajina Begum cannot be sustained. [81] Thounaojam Rosie Devi participated in the National Table Tennis Tournament, 1996 at Pondicherry as Extra/Additional Entry. Since the State of Manipur women team was not sent officially, she participated by arranging expenses herself as Extra Entry from the State of Manipur. Hence, her participation from Manipur in the tournament cannot be doubted and her certificate cannot be held fake one. In fact, the certificate mentioned her participation from Manipur. [82] As observed and as held above, the findings in the departmental enquiries against the petitioners cannot be sustained:
firstly, the departmental enquiries are vitiated as initiated in violation of the direction of this Court in order dated 08.11.2016 and secondly, the findings are not proved in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 17.10.1998 issued by the Government of Manipur.
[83] Accordingly, the memorandum of charges, enquiry reports, show cause notices and termination orders are set aside. Petitioners are directed to be taken into service with all consequential benefits. Since the termination of Aruna Laishram has not been stayed by this Court unlike the cases of other petitioners, she is reinstated to her service with continuity of service. The period under termination shall be considered to be in service. Since she was out of service from 30.05.2018, the authority may consider the entitlement of back wages to her.
[84] Since the charges and finding of producing fake and/or unrecognised certificates are set aside by this Court, the continuation of FIR No. 1(1)2014 VPS u/s 420/468/471 IPC registered against Thounaojam Rosie Devi, Aruna Laishram and Rajina Begum will be WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 57 nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the FIR No. 1(1)2014 VPS u/s 420/468/471 IPC and its connected proceedings are quashed in order to do complete justice.
[85] Writ petitions and criminal petition are allowed and disposed of accordingly. No cost.
JUDGE FR/NRF Priyojit RAJKUMA Digitally signed by RAJKUMAR R PRIYOJIT PRIYOJIT SINGH Date: 2025.06.06 SINGH 17:07:23 +05'30' WP(C) NOS. 463, 1027, 455, 457, 528 & 529 OF 2018;CRIL. PETN. NO. 17 OF 2021 58