Brajendra Singh Yambem v. Union of India and Anr.
V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. I. Leave granted.
2. The present appeals arise out of the common impugned
judgment and order dated 05.08.2013 passed by the Division Bench of E
the High Cou11 of Manipur at Imphal in Writ Appeal Nos. 39 and 40 of
2011, whereby the judgment and order dated 01.09.20 I 0 passed by the
learned single Judge of the High Court of Gauhati, Imphal Bench in
W.P. (C) Nos. 904 of 2008 and 264 of 20 I 0 was set aside.
3. The necessary facts required to appreciate the rival legal F
contentions advanced on behalf of the pai1ies are stated in brief hereunder:
The appellant was serving as a regular Commandant of 61"
Battalion, CRPF and at the time of incidents, was posted at Mantripukhri,
Imphal. He is alleged to be involved in two cases. The first case, i.e.
Civil Appeal arising out of the SLP (C) No. 30907 of2013 relates to G
missing of arms and ammunition. The second case, i.e. Civil Appeal
arising out ofSLP (C) No. I 0092of2014 relates to the alleged supply of
contraband gunja, by 11 CRPF personnel posted in the unit of the
appellant.
1-1
338
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20 i 6] 6 S.C.R.
Between 03.06.1995 and 05.07.1995, one AK-47 rifle with 3
magazines and 90 rounds of7.62 ammunition issued in the name of one
Lance Naik Man Bahadur, who was posted at the same battalion of
which the appellant was the commandant went missing. According to
the respondents, the loss occurred as a result of the verbal orders issued
by the appellant, which action amounted to a violation of Rules 3( 1 )(i) &
(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter
referred to as the "CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964").
4. On 28.05.1997, the Deputy Inspector General of Police (OPS),
CRPf, Imphal sent a letter to the appellant, directing him to submit a
written statement of defence in connection with the said lapse. The
relewnt portions of the said letter are extracted hereunder:
"It has been intimated by !GP, NI Sector, CRPF that one
AK-47 Rifle, 3 Magazines and 90 rounds of7.62 ammunition
of commanding 61 Bn at Mantripukhri, Imphal. A Court of
Inquiry was conducted. !GP N/Sector has intimated to this
office that the said weapon and ammunition belonging to
HQr Coy was shown as issued to LNK Man Bahadur but
was actually being used by a civilian on your orders. It has
further been intimated that S.M. P.N. Gupta (OC HQr Coy
61 Bn) had brought it to your notice that the said weapon
and ammunition were not returned by the civilian and were
missing from the HQr Coy Kote. To this effect, Shri P.N.
Gupta had informed you in writing on 21.08.1995. However,
no action was taken nor any decision given by you ..... .
. . . , , .. , . Thereforn, I am directed by IGP, N/Sector that to
request you to send your written statement to this office at
;m early ctate,,, ... "
5. Pursuant to the above letter, the appellant submitted his written
statement on 07.04.1998, explai11ing the reasons which resulted in the
loss of the said weapon and ammunition.
G 6. By letter dated 24.06.1998, the Deputy Inspector General CRPF,
Imphal, on the basis of the conclusion arrived at by the internal Court of
Inquiry, issued a warning to the appellant to be more careful and also
ordered for a sum of Rs.3, 750/- to be recovered from the appellant in
lieu of the lost weapon.
BRAJENDRA SINGH YAMBEM v. UNION OF INDIA AND
ANR. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
7. Subsequently, on 15.03.1999, the IGP, Northern Sector, CRPF,
sent a letter to the appellant stating that after review of the case, the
Directorate General had come to the conclusion that the penalty inflicted
upon him vide letter dated 24.06.1998 was being withdrawn as the same
did not commensurate with the gravity of the offence committed by the
appellant in discharge of his official duties. After obtaining approval from
the competent authority, major penalty proceedings were initiated and
Memorandum of Charges dated 23.06.1999 was issued to the appellant.
Subsequently, pursuant to the Presidential Order dated 14. l O. J 999, a
regular departmental inquiry under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services
(Classification Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to
as the "CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965") was ordered in connection with the
said incident of the loss of AK-47 Rifle along with its ammunition.
8. Aggrieved of the said action of withdrawal of imposition of
minor penalty and initiating departmental inquiry, the appellant filed Writ
Petition (C) No. 720 of2002 before the High Court of Gauhati, Imphal
Bench, by questioning the validity of the said Memorandum of Charges
dated 15.03.1999 on the ground that it is in violation of the principles of
natural justice and is also contrary to the settled position oflaw.
9. The learned single Judge allowed the Writ Petition vide judgment
and order dated 18.05.2006 by placing reliance on various decisions of
this Court on the aspect of principles of natural justice. It was observed
that the earlier punishment imposed upon the appellant was withdrawn
suo motu by the competent authority by order dated 15.03.1999 without
affording him the opportunity of being heard, by passing a non speaking
order. The learned single Judge accordingly set aside the order dated
15.03.1999 as the earlier penalty imposed upon th!) appellant was
withdrawn by which the letter dated 24.06.1998 was withdrawn by the
IGP-NS. .
10. In the meanwhile, the appellant retired fro111 service as a regular
Commandant/Police Officer, CRPF on 31.08.2006. ·
11, The respondenHJnion oflndia preferred Writ Appeal No. 45
of 2006 before the Division Bench of the High Court against the said
judgment and order of the learned single Judge.
12, The Division B()nch of the High Court by w11y of judgment
and order dated 07 .11.2006 upheld the finding and reasons recorded by
the learned single Judge and held that the appellant should have been
339
340
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 6 S.C.R.
afforded an opportunity of being heard before the Memorandum of
Charges dated 15.03.1999 was issued to him. The Division Bench
however, observed that it was open for the Disciplinary Authority to
initiate fresh action in the matter against the appellant by complying with
the principles of natural justice. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
13. In pursuance of the liberty granted by the Division Bench to
the respondents, a show cause notice dated 02.02.2007 was issued to
the appellant, by which he was given time of fifteen days to reply to the
same. After considering the reply of the appellant, the DG-CRPF came
to the conclusion that it was appropriate to initiate disciplinary proceedings
against the appellant afresh.
14. Accordingly, on 22.08.2008, the respondents issued another
Memorandum of Charges to the appellant in pursuance of the sanction
accorded by the President of India under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the Central
Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the ··ccs
(Pension) Rules, 1972") for initiating departmental inquiry proceedings
against him in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 14 of
the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1965 and directed him to submit his written statement of defence to the
said Memorandum of charges. The articles of charges framed against
the appellant are extracted hereunder:
E "Article-I
That the said Shri S.S. Yambem, Commandant (Retired)
while posted and functioning as Commandant 61 Bn CRPF
at Mantripukhri, Imphal (Manipur) during the period from
1.5.95 to 31.8.95 committed an act of misconduct in that he
F allowed, kote UO to issue arms and ammunitions more than
authorization. Thus the said B.S. Yambem, Commandant
(Retired) failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and
acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government Servant
and thereby violated the provisions contained in Rule 3( I )(ii)
G and (iii) ofCCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-II
That the said Shri B.S. Yambem, Commandant (Retired)
while posted and functioning in the aforesaid capacity and
during the aforesaid period committed an act of misconduct
BRAJENDRA SINGH YAMBEM v. UNION OF INDIA AND
ANR. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
in that he passed verbal orders to issue service arms and
ammunitions to ex-undergrounds through kote UC's without
keeping/maintaining proper records violating the instructions
on the subject. Thus, the said Shri B.S. Yambem, Comdt.
(Retired) failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion
to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt.
servant and thereby violated the provisions contained in Rule
3( I )(ii) and (iii) ofCCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-III
That the said Shri B.S. Yarnbem, Cornmandant(Retired)while
posted and functioning as Commandant 61 Bn CRPF,
Mantripukhri. Imphal (Manipur) during the period from
1.5.95 to 31.8.95 committed an act. of misconduct in that
he got issued service weapons to undergrounds through
No.793020336 LNK Man Bahadur in violation of orders
which resulted in missing ofone AK-47 Body No. 313422
Butt No. 77, 3 Magazine and 90 rounds. That the said Shri
B.S. Yambem, Commandant (Retired) failed to maintain
absolute integrity and devotion to the duty and acted in a
manner unbecoming of a Govt. Servant and thereby violated
the provisions contained in Rule 3( I )(i)(ii) and (iii) of the
CCS (Conduct)Rules, 1964.
Article-IV-
That the said Shri B.S. Yambem. Comdt. (u/s) while posted
and functioning in the aforesaid capacity during the aforesaid
period con11nitted an act of misconduct in that he passed
341
verbal orders to issue service arms and ammunitions to ex- F
undergrounds resulting missing of one AK 47 Body No.
313422 Butt No. 77, 3 Magazines and 90 Rounds. He had
hidden the above fact and failed to take appropriate action
after missing the service weapon. Thus the said Shri B.S.
Yambem, Comdt. (u/s) failed to maintain absolute integrity G
and devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of
a Govt. Servant and thereby violated the provisions
contained in Rule 3( I )(i)(ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules,
1964.''
342
15. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant filed Writ Petition(C)
No.904 of 2008 before the High Court of Gauhati, Imphal Bench
questioning the issuance of the Memorandum of Charges urging various
legal grounds.
16. In the meanwhile, another set of disciplinary proceedings had
been initiated against the appellant in connection with the arrest of 11
personnel and seizure of two trucks of the unit of the appellant carrying
contraband ganja. The allegation against the appellant was that he tried
to cover up the same and that the said act of the appellant amounted to
a violation of the Rules 3(1 )(i),(ii) &(iii) ofCCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
The departmental enquiry was initiated against him on 14.05.1998.
Aggrieved of the initiation of disciplinary proceedings in connection with
the above alleged misconduct, the appellant filed W.P. No. 805 of2005
before the High Court of Gauhati, Imphal Bench. The learned single
Judge of the High Court allowed the Writ Petition by way of judgment
and order dated 16.06.2006 by the learned single Judge of the High
Court. The single Judge, however, granted liberty to the Disciplinary
Authority to initiate departmental enquiry afresh against the appellant
after complying with the directions given in the judgment.
1 7. Aggrieved of the said judgment, the respondents filed Writ
Appeal No. 25 of 2007 before the Division Bench of the High Court
questioning the correctness of the same. The Division Bench of the
High Court dismissed the said Writ Appeal vide judgment and order
13. 11.2008 and upheld the impugned judgment and order of the learned
single Judge. Thereafter, the said Memorandum of Charges dated
14.05.1998 was withdrawn by the respondents, and another
Memorandum of Charges dated 16.10.2009 was issued. The A11icles of
Charges framed against the appellant are extracted as hereunder:
'"Article-I
That the said Shri B.S. Yambem, Commandant while posted
and functioning as Commandant in 61 Bn. CRPF at
G Mantripukhri, Imphal during August 1995 committed a
serious misconduct in that he on 08/08/1995 sent three
vehicles, one Asstt. Commandant and 18 other ranks of his
Unit out of the area of operational jurisdiction without the
approval of!GP (Ops) Manipur and Nagaland. Two of the
above vehicles and 11 men were later intercepted and
BRAJENDRA SINGH YAMBEM v. UNION OF INDIA AND
ANR. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
apprehended by the Customs and Central Excise Authorities
at Didarganj check post near Patna on the night of I 11081
1995 as a huge quantity of contraband ganja was found
loaded in these vehicles. Thus, the said Shri B.S. Yambem,
failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty
and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant
and thereby violated the provisions contained in Rule 3( I),
(i),(ii)and (iii) ofCCS (Conduct) Rules, I 964.
Articfo-11
That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in
the aforesaid Unit in the aforesaid capacity, the said Shri
B.S. Yambem committed a serious misconduct in that he
fabricated office records to cover illegal dispatch ofCRPF
vehicles and men out of operational jurisdiction without
proper permission or orders of the competent authority and
also tried to secure false medical certificates in respect of
Officers and men allegedly involved in the illegal
transshipment of ganja from civil hospital on coming to know
about the detention of his Unit vehicles and men by Central
Excise authorities of Patna on 12/08/1995. Thus. the said
Shri B.S. Yambem, failed to maintain absolute integrity and
devotion of duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a
Government servant and thereby violated the provisions
contained in Rule 3(1), (iJ. (ii) and (iii) ofCCS (Conduct)
Rules, 1964.
Article-Ill
343
That the said Shri B.S. Yambem, Commandant (under F
suspension) while posted and functioning as Commandant
6 I Bn. CRPF, Mantripukhri. Imphal during August, I 995
committed a serious misconduct in that he suppressed the
information of arrival of Shri Ram Singh, Asst!. Comdt
(under suspension), 4 Ors. with Civil TATA 608 truck with G
civilian driver at Bn. 1-JQrs on I 5/16-8-95 and kept them
hiding at remote Coy location at Mayang, Imphal and shown
their arrival at Bn HQrs on 0245 hrs on I 7/08/1995 though
they were wanted by Central Excise authorities in
connection with the seizure of ganja from two trucks of his
1-1
344
Unit at Didarganj check-post near Patna on the night of 11 I
8/1995. Thus, the said Shri B.S. Yambem, failed to maintain
absolute integrity and devotion to duty and acted in a manner
unbecoming of a Government servant and thereby violated
the provisions contained in Rule 3( 1 ), (i) (ii) and (iii) ofCCS
(Conduct) Rules, 1964."
18. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant filed Writ Pctition(C)
No. 264 of20 I 0 before the High Cou1i of Gauhati, Imphal Bench.
19. As the legal issue was same in both the Writ Petitions, i.e.,
No. 904 of 2008 (filed against the Memorandum of Charges dated
22.08.2008-issued in I" case i.e. Arms case) and Writ Petition No. 264
of2010 (filed against Memorandum of Charges dated 16.10.2009-issued
in 2"d case i.e. Ganja case), they were heard together and disposed of
by the learned single Judge vide common judgment and order dated
01.09.20 I 0. The learned single Judge held that the Memorandum of
Charges in both the cases make it clear that the initiation of disciplinary
proceedings against the appellant by the Disciplinary Authority for the
alleged incidents which took place more than I 0 years earlier was barred
by limitation as provided for under Rule 9(2)(b )(ii) of the CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972. Accordingly, the learned single Judge quashed the
Memorandum of Charges dated 22.08.2008 and 16.10.2009 and allowed
the above Writ Petitions filed by the appellant.
20. Aggrieved of the common judgment and order passed by the
learned single Judge, the respondents filed Writ Appeal (C) Nos. 39 of
2011 and 40 of 2011 (against Writ Petition No. 904 of 2008 and Writ
Petition No. 264 of20 I 0, respectively) before the Division Bench of the
High Court questioning the correctness of the same.
21. The Division Bench of the High Court after hearing the parties
decided the above said Writ Appeals by passing the impugned common
judgment and order dated 05.08.2013, observing that once the sanction
was obtained by the Disciplinary Authority from the President of India,
then the bar of period of limitation of four years as contained in Rule
9(2)(b)(ii) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 will not apply. Hence, the
proceedings of serving the Memorandum of Charges to the appellant
after his retirement falls within the ambit of Rule 9(2)(a) read with Rule
9(2)(b)(i) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The Division Bench of the
High Court, thus, allowed the appeals and set aside the order of the
BRAJENDRA SINGH YAMBEM v. UNION OF INDIA AND
ANR. (V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
learned single Judge and upheld the decision of the respondents to hold
depa11mental enquiry against the appellant. The Division Bench of the
High Court further directed the Enquiry Officer to hold the departmental
enquiry strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any
observation of its order. The respondents were further directed to proceed
with the departmental enquiry against the appellant and conclude the
same after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to him in the enquiry
proceedings. Hence, the present appeals filed by the appellant.
22. Mr. Lenin Singh Hijam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant contends that the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings
against the appellant by the Disciplinary Authority in the year 2008, after
long lapse of 13 and 14 years of the occurrence.of the alleged incidents
in the two cases is violative of Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972. In support of the same, reliance is placed on the decision of
this Court in the case of St(lfe o/U.P. &A11r. v. Sltri Krislt11" P(lndey1,
wherein it has been held that a government employee cannot be subjected
to a depm1mental enquiry after his retirement from service for any event
or occurrence which took place more than four years prior to the date of
the institution of the disciplinary proceedings against an employee.
23. The learned counsel further contends that the Division Bench
of the High Court has erred in bypassing the CCS (1',·11sin11) Rules, 1972
in extending the limitation period for initiating depm1mental enquiry against
the appellant, which action of the disciplinar) authority is contrary to the
Rules as well as the decision of this Com1 in the case of Sflri Kris///1(1
Pandey (supra).
24. The learned counsel further contends that neither the Inspector
General of Police (NS-CRPF) nor the Director General, CRPF could
have issued the Memorandum of Charges dated 22.08.2008 and
16.10.2009 for initiating fresh departmental enquiry proceedings against
the appellant as they were not the competent authority to do so. It is
further contended that the statutory safeguards provided for retired
government employees under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 should not
have been overlooked by the respondents.
25. The learned counsel further contends that enquiry proceedings
that were initiated by the respondents under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA)
Rules, 1965 in respect of the alleged incident of loss of weapon and
'(1996) 9 sec 395
345
346
ammunition, were quashed by the learned single Judge of the High Court.
Subsequently, enquiry proceedings were initiated afresh against the
appellant under Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) ofCCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Therefore,
the respondents cannot mislead this Court by justifying their action of
initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant on the ground
that the second enquiry proceeding which was initiated by them by issuing
the Memorandum of Charges was merely a continuation of the first
enquiry proceeding itself, when the same was initiated afresh by the
disciplinary authority after obtaining sanction from the President as
required under Rules 9(2)(b )(i) after the retirement of the appellant from
service and more than four years from the date of the alleged incidents.
26. As far as the case in the Civil Appeal arising out of the SLP
(C) No. I 0092of2014 is concerned (ganja case), the learned counsel
on behalfofthe appellant refutes the involvement of the appellant in the
same. It is contended that there were 11 CRPF personnel who were
charge-sheeted and booked in the said case and tried before the District
and Sessions Judge, Patna forthe alleged offences punishable under the
relevant provisions of the NDPS Act. The Trial Court acquitted the said
personnel. Further, no departmental enquiry was conducted against them.
Strangely, the departmental enquiry proceedings were initiated only
against the appellant and that too, afrer 13 years of the alleged incident
which is in violation of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The learned
counsel further contends that the above dcprutmental enquiry was initiated
against the appellant with a ma/a fide intention to harass him.
27. On the other hand. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned Additional
Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondents. has sought to
justify the common impugned judgment and order dated 05.08.2013
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court contending that the
High Court was right in allowing the Writ Appeals filed by the respondents
and that the same does not suffer from either erroneous reasoning or
any error in law which warrants interference by th is Court in exercise
of its appellate jurisdiction under A11icle 136 of the Constitution oflndia.
28. The learned ASG further contends that Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the
CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 cannot come to the rescue of the appellant
as the departmental inquiry had already been initiated against the appellant
vide letter dated 15.03.1999, while he was still in service.
29. The learned ASG further places reliance on clause (a) of
BRAJENDRA SINGH YAMBEM v. UNION OF INDIA AND 347
ANR. [V. GOPALA GOWDA. J.)
sub-rule 2 of Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules. 1972 which reads thus: A
"'9(2)(a) ... The departmental proceedings referred to in sub-
rule (I) if instituted, while the Government servant was in
service whether before. his retirement or during his re
employment, shall, after the final retirement of the
Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under B
this ru'e and shall be continued and concluded by the
Authority by which they were commenced in the same
manner as if the Government servant had continued in the
service"
Further, reliance is placed by the learned ASG on the decision of
this Court in the case of D. V. Kapoor i: U11io11 of lmlia 1, wherein this
Cou1t has held that the proceedings under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972 can be instituted or continued against a government servant
who has retired from service in those cases in which grave misconduct
is alleged to have been committed. In the case on hand, prior sanction of
the President was obtained by the Disciplinary Authority as required
under Ruic 9(2)(b)(i) of the CCS (Pension) Rules. 1972 for continuing
the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. The learned ASG further
places reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of State of M.P.
v. D1: Yasllwallf Trim/}(lk', wherein it was held that personal sanction
of the Governor or President is not required and it is sufficient that the
sanction be issued by a duly authorized officer and is properly
authenticated. No court can look into the validity of such sanction in
terms of Articles 77(3) and 166(3) of the Constitution oflndia.
30. The learned ASG further contends that the legal principles
enunciated by this Court in the case of S/1ri Kris/ma P1111dey (supra)
cannot be relied upon in the instant case, as the factual situations in the
two cases are very different from each other. In the case ofS//ri Kris//1111
l'muley (supra). the concerned officer therein retired from service on
31.03.1987 and the proceedings against him were initiated on 21.04.1991.
This Court observed in the said case that it was clear that the incident of
embezzlement had taken place four years prior to the date of his
retirement and the embezzlement had resulted in pecuniary loss to the
State Government. The State Government did not take any action and
allowed the officer to escape from the provisions of regulations 351-A
'(1990) 4 sec 314
' ( 1996) 2 sec 305
348
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] 6 S.C.R.
of the Civil Services Regulations. It was further observed by this Court
in the above case that the decision of this Court did not preclude the
Disciplinary Authority from carrying on with the investigation into the
offence and take action thereon. While in the instant case, the appellant
retired from service on 31.08.2006 and sanction was accorded by the
President of India within 3 years, that is, on 22.8.2008 for conducting
departmental enquiry against him, which is within the limit of four years
period as prescribed in the said Rules. Therefore, the learned ASG
submits that the facts of the instant case do not attract Rule 9(2)(b)(ii)of
the CCS (Pension)Rules, 1972. According to the learned ASG, the date
of institution of the disciplinary proceedings should be considered from
the date on which the Memorandum of Charges was issued. The learned
ASG further places reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of
U11ion of l11dia v. Kewal Kumar', wherein it was held that the
requirement of issuance of the Memorandum of Charges is not necessary
to be complied with when decision is taken by the competent Disciplinary
Authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings on the basis of an FIR.
Hence, the appellant cannot place reliance on the decision of this Court
on the case of Sltri Kris/ma Pandey (supra), when the charges framed
against him by the disciplinary authority pertain to a matter as serious as
smuggling contraband ganja.
31. The learned ASG further places reliance on the decisions of
this Court in the cases of Railwlly Bocml Represe11ti11g Tlte Union of
bulia v. Nirctnji111 Si11glt-' and Stllte of Mcu/ras 1( Ci Su11dllrl11116,
wherein this Court has held that the. High Court while exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not
interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority
after holding an enquiry, unless the findings of fact are not supported by
any evidence.
32. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
both the pm1ies. The following essential questions would arise for our
consideration in the case:
I. Whether the impugned judgment and order passed by
the Division Bench of the High Cou11 correctly appreciates
the scope of Rule 9(2)(b )(ii) of the CCS (Pension) Rules,
'AIR 1993 SC 1585
'(1969) 1 sec 502
6 AIR 1965 SC 1103
BRAJENDRA SINGH YAMBEM v. UNION OF INDIA AND 349
ANR. (V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
1972 in light of the fact the disciplinary proceedings were A
initiated more than four years after the alleged incidents?
2. Whether the impugned judgment and order is erroneous
and is vitiated in law?
3. What Order? B
Answer to Point Nos. l and 2
Since Points 1 and 2 are inter-related, the same are answered
together as under:
33. With reference to the aforesaid factual and rival legal
contentions urged before this Cou11, to answer the same, at the outset it C
would be necessary to refer to the letter dated 20.02.2009 issued by the
DIGP (CR & Vig.) which reads as under:
"Directorate Ge11eral, CRPF
(Ministry of Home Affairs)
Sub : Department Enquiry Against Shri B.S. D
Yambem, Commandant (Retd.)
A DE was conducted against Shri B.S. Yambem,
·commandant on the charges of sending vehicle of his Unit
along with men on 8.8.1995 out ofhisjurisdiction and when
the vehicles were seized by the Customs authorities for
illegal transshipment of Ganja, he made efforts to conceal
the same by manipulating documents. Article of charge is
at P/72 of C/file.
2. The DE was completed and a copy of !Os report was
served on the C/0. The C/O filed a WP No. 805 of2005 in
the Guwahati High Com1, Imphal Bench in which first the
Hon'ble Cout1 vide order dated 18.7.2005 stayed the DE
and then vide judgment dated 16.6.2006 (copy at P/55/c/
side), quashed the DE initiated vide Memo dated 14.5.1998
and repo11 of the IO. The Hon'ble Court, however, left it
open for the DA/IOP to conduct the DE afresh, after
supplying copies of proceedings of the COi and also the
English translated copies of statemer.,~s. of the· witnesses
and documents. recorded i.1~ 11ilil4.f. t~ ~he petitioner.
3. Against the al.Jove 0r.der. tlw Department filed W.A. No.
A 25 of2007 in the Division Bench which was dismissed by
the Hon'ble Court on 13.11.2008 (copy at P/125c/Side).
The matter was referred to MOL and the ASG opined that
it is not a fit case for filing SLP (copy of relevant notes at
P/J 20c/side ).
B 4. In view of the above, the judgment dated 16.6.2006 of
the Hon 'ble Court is required to be implemented now which
would require taking the following actions:-
(i) Supplying copies of proceedings of the COi and
the English translated copies of statements of the
C witnesses and documents recorded in Hindi to the
petitioner. This would be pre-requisite for sta1ting the
DE against the C/O afresh.
(ii) Memorandum dated 14.5.1998 will have to be
cancelled and DE against the C/O started afresh on
D the same charges. However, fresh Memorandum
would be issued after supplying the C/O with a copy
of the COi file and English translation of the statement
of witnesses.
5. MHA may therefore like to see the case and convey
E approval of Competent Authority to take the above actions.
Since the Officer has already proceeded on superannuation
(while under suspension) w.e.f3 I .8.2006, the DE ordered
afresh would be under Rule 9(2) ofCCS (Pension) Rules,
1972.
F 6. This has the approval of the DG.
(Ranjit Singh)
DIGP (CR & Vig)
20.02.2009"
(emphasis laid by this Court)
A perusal of the said letter makes it clear that the Disciplinary
Authority, following the judgment and order dated 16.06.2006 passed in
W.P. No.805 of2005 by the learned single Judge of the High Court and
judgment and order dated 13.08.2008 passed in W.A. No. 25 of2007 by
the Division Bench of the High Court initiated disciplinary proceedings
BRAJENDRA SINGH YAMBEM v. UNION OF INDIAAND 351
ANR. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
afresh against the appellant under Rule 9(2)(b )(ii) of CCS (Pension) A
Rules, 1972 and also sought the sanction of the President of India.
Rule 9(2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 reads thus:
"9. Right of President to withhold or withdraw
pension-
(2) (a)The departmental proceedings referred to in sub-rule
(I), if instituted while the Government servant was
in service whether before his retirement or during,
his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of
the Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings
under this rule and shall be continued and concluded
by the authority by which they were commenced in
the same manner as ifthe Government servant had
continued in service :
Provided that where the departmental proceedings
are instituted by an authority subordinate to the
President, that authority shall submit a report
recording its findings to the President.
(b) The depa1tmental proceedings, ifnot instituted while
the Government servant was in service, whether
before his retirement, or during his re-employment, -
(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of
the President,
(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took
place more than four years before such
institution, and
(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in
such place as the President may direct and in
accordance with the procedure applicable to
departmental proceedings in which an order of
dismissal from service could be made in relation
to the Government servant during his service."
A perusal of the above Rule makes it clear that if the disciplinary
proceedings are not instituted against the Government servant by the
disciplinary authority while he was in service, then the prior sanction of
352
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016) 6 S.C.R.
the President of India is required to institute such proceedings against
such a person. It is also clear that such sanction shall not be in respect of
an event which took place more than four years before the institution of
such disciplinary proceedings.
34. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has
rightly placed strong reliance on Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the CCS (Pension)
Rules, I 972. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant retired from service
on 3 I .08.2006. The learned single Judge of the High Court by way of
judgment and order dated 18.05.2006 in Writ Petition No. 720 of2002
quashed the disciplinary proceedings in the case pertaining to the missing
arms and ammunitions. However, liberty was granted to the Disciplinary
Authority/Enquiry Officer to conduct the disciplinary enquiry afresh after
supplying the copies of the proceedings of the enquiry to the appellant.
The said judgment and order of the single Judge was challenged by the
respondents by way of Writ Appeal No. 45 of2006, in which the Division
Bench, by judgment and order dated 07. I I .2006 upheld the order of the
single judge of the High Court. It was only pursuant to this that the fresh
memorandum of charges dated 22.08.2008 was issued to the appellant,
which was clearly beyond the period oflimitation of four years as provided
for under the CCS (Pension) Rules, I 972. Similarly, in the case involving
the contraband ganja. the single Judge of the High Court by way of
judgment and order dated 16.06.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 805 pf
2005 quashed the departmental enquiry under the memorandum of
charges dated 14.05.1998. The Division Bench dismissed the Writ Appeal
No. 25 of 2007 filed by the respondents vi de judgment and order dated
13.11.2008 and upheld the order of the learned single Judge. It was
pursuant to this that the fresh departmental enquiry was initiated against
the appellant on 16.10.2009 after obtaining sanction from the President
of India under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The
appellant challenged the correctness of the sanction and charges framed
against him before the High Court ofGauhati, Imphal Bench in W.P. (C)
No. 264 of20 I 0. The High Court quashed the Memorandum of Charges
on the ground that it was issued after four years from the date of the
alleged incident. Therefore, it was held that the said action of the
Disciplinary Authority in initiating disciplinary proceedings is not valid in
law as th~ &ame was barred by limitation as per the provision of Rule
9(2)(b)(ii) oft11e CCS (Pension) Rules 1972. This impo1tant legal aspect
of the case was not .considered by the Division Bench of the High Court
BRAJENDRA SINGH YAMBEM v. UNION OF !NOIA AND
ANR. [Y GOPALA GOWDA, J,]
while setting aside the common j4dg1111Jnt and prder dated 01.09,20 l Q
passed by the learned singlll Judge in Writ P11tition No, 904 of 200$
(arms and ammunitio11s case) and Writ Petition No. 264 of 2010
(contraband ganja case).
35. It is a well established principle of law that if the ma!)ner of
dping a particular act is prescribed under lll1Y statute then the act must
be done in that 1mrnner or not at all. Thll 11foresaid legal position has
been laid down b)' th i§ Court in the 1li1s!l of Or1(?11 V1Jrg(1ese & Ors. v.
B"r Co11n(!/I of Kemlo & Ors, 7, th~ rl"!IQvant pilragraphs of which are
extracted hereunder ;
"3 l. It is the basic principle of hnv long settled that ifthe
manner of doing ;1 partleulnr &Qt is prescribed under any
statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all.
The origin of this rule is traceable to the decision in Ta.vlor
v. Taylor which Wf!S followecl by Lord Rpc;he in Nq;ir
Ahmc"I \'. Ki11g Jimpl!rm• Wll9 st;Mcl H~ Pll~llm
"[W)herl;l a powl;lr i~ 1.1lven to. do ii i;;ertain thing; in 11 ~ertain
wuy. the tliintJ nrn~t bi! dPlle in that way Pf not 1111111!'
32. This rul~ lrn~ §hW<i been flppn::ivecl by thi~ '3i:iµ,rt in {?90
Shiv Bahqdur Singh v. 81a/(J of U.fl. and again in Deep
Chand v. Sime of Rajas than. These cases were considered
lly I! thre~-Jµc!,ge Bench of thi~ Cp1.ff( ill 8/qte of V.P v,
$in[f/1qm Si1mh 11nd the rule laid down in Nazir Ahmad
PW!!" Wlls fl~flin Hpheld. Tl1is rµle ha~ since been applied to
tlw "~!,!rci&e qf jµr!sRif;tion by cqµrts in1c! has also been
f(ICPfcllliS!:lQ 'I~ ;i ~alutary principle of administrative law."
Thi!! 11for~~f!id imppnimt llSpect of the case should have been
considered lly th~ DivhiPn ~@rwh of the High Court instead of
mechanically° rwcepting the 11rti;ument advanced on behalf of the
respondents that the case pf the appell'l!lt squarely falls under Rule
9(2)(b )(i) reial with Rule 9 (2)(b )(ii) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972,
Therefore, the flnclln~s recorded by the Division Bench in the impugned
judgment are erroneous in law and are liable to be set aside.
36. The learned ASG appeari11g on behalf of the respondents
contends that the period of limitation of four years as stipulated in
1 (19991 3 sec 422
353
I3
354
9(2)(b )(ii) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 does not apply to the facts
of the present case for the reason that the departmental proceedings
against the appel I ant had already been initiated while he was in service,
and it was because of the pendency of the litigation before the High
Court that the proceedings could not be concluded and fu11her disciplinary
proceedings were continued after obtaining prior sanction of the President
of India as required under RLile 9(2)(b )(i) of the CCS (Pension) Rules,
1972. The said contention is untenable both on facts as well as in law.
37. The Division Bench of the High Cou11 failed to appreciate
the fact that liberty had been granted by the High Court vi de its judgment
and order dated 07.11.2006 in W.A. (C) No. 45 of2006 to the Disciplinary
Authority to take disciplina1y action against the appellant. Thus, there
was no need for the respondent Disciplinary Authority to withdraw the
Memorandum of Charges dated 14.05.1998 for the purpose of initiating
disciplina1y proceedings afresh against the appellant on the same charges
by obtaining an order of sanction from the President oflndia as required
under Rule 9(2)(b )(i) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The Division
Bench of the High Court in its judgment and order dated 05.08.2013 has
completely ignored this important legal aspect of the matter, that the
prior sanction accorded by the President under the above said Rules
was in fact, barred by limitation. Thus, it has committed serious error in
law in a1Tiving at the conclusion that the respondent Disciplinary Authority
had obtained due sanction from the President of India to conduct the
departmental proceedings against the appellant for the same charges,
which action was barred by limitation as provided under Rule 9(2)(b )(ii)
of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Therefore, the impugned judgment and
order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be allowed
to sustain in law.
38. The similar question oflaw came for consideration before this
Court in the case of Sltri Krisll11a P1111dey (supra), wherein it was held
as under:
"6. It would thus be seen that proceedings are required to
be instituted against a delinquent officer before retirement.
There is no specific provision allowing the officer to continue
in service nor any order passed to allow him to continue on
re-employment till the enquiry is completed, without allowing
him to retire from service. Equally, there is no provision
that the proceedings be initiated as a disciplinary measure
BRAJENDRA SINGH YAMBEM v. UNION OF INDIA AND
ANR. (V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
and the action initiated earlier would remain unabated after
retirement. If Regulation 351-A is to be operative in respect
of pending proceedings, by necessary implication, prior
sanction of the Governor to continue the proceedings against
him is required. On the other hand, the Regulation also would
indicate that if the officer caused pecuniary loss or committed
embezzlement etc. due to misconduct or negligence or
dereliction of duty, then proceedings should also be instituted
after retirement against the officer as expeditiously as
possible. But the events of misconduct etc. which may have
resulted in the loss to the Government or embezzlement,
i.e., the cause for the institution of proceedings, should not
have taken place more than four years before the date of
institution of proceedings. In other words, the departmental
proceedings must be instituted before lapse of four years
from the date on which the event of misconduct etc. had
taken place. Ad1i1ittedly, in this case the officer had rt:tired
Qn 3 l-3...:.l 98_Land the proceeding~ wcr~ init[Jited 01121-4-
1991. Obvimifil, the_ event of embezzlement which caused
J2!'CUniary loss to the State took place prior to four wars
from the date of his retirement. Under these circumstances,
the State had disabled itself by their deliberate omissions to
take appronriate action against the respondent and allowed
the officer to escape from the provisions of Regulation 351-
A of the Rfilill_lations. This order does not preclude
proceeding with the investigation into the offence and taking
action thereon."
(emphasis laid by this Court)
39. The judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Yas/1wm1t
Trimlmk\.Stipra) also does not apply to the facts of the case on hand.
This Court had held in that case that the order of sanction to initiate
disciplinary proceedings granted by the Governor cannot be scrutinized
by this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review, as the said
action comes within the protection of Article 166(2) of the Constitution
oflndia. This principle oflaw is not applicable to the present fact situation
for the reason that the order of sanction granted by the President of
India is not in exercise of his executive power under Article 77(2) of the
Constitution which speaks of orders and other instruments made and
355
I-I
q
executed in the name of President of India. The Rules specified under
Article 77(3) of the Constitution are rules framed by the President of
Indi& for transaction of business of the Government of India. The said
constitutional immunity conferred either upon the Governor or President
is confined only to the executive action of the appropriate Government.
Ttw order of sanction to be granted by the President of India as provided
under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 is for initiation
of the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant, which cannot be
treated as !ln executive action of the Government of India. Rather, it is a
statutWY ex1.1rcise of power by the President, under Rule 9(2)(b )(i) of
the CCS (Pension) R~1les, 1972. The said Rules are framed by the
President oflnclia in exercise of legislative power conferred under Article
309 of the Constitution oflndla. Article 309 of the Constitution provides
for fraining Rules and Regulations for the regulation ofrecruitment and
conditions of service of persons serving under the Union or a State
government, mid reads as under :
11309,Recruitment and conditions of service of
flllf~QllS sQrvln!;J the Union or a State· Subject to the
provi~ions of this Constitution, Acts of the appropriate
Legislature inay reguh\te the recruitment, and conditions of
service of persons appointed, to public services and posts
in co11m:ction with tlw affairs pf the Union or of &ny State:
Prqvi~ei:I th!lt it ~h!lll be Qo1n.petent for the. President or such
Pel's\ln !ls hti nl!lY dirllct ln the case Qf services and posts in
~onnectiAn wll11 the !lffllirs pf the Union, and for the
Oovemor of a Stme w s1.1ch per~o11 as he may direct in the
case of service§ anct posts in connection with the &ffairs of
the State, to make rules regulating the recruitment, and the
conditions of service of persons 11ppointed, to such services
and posts until provisions in tlun behalf is made by or under
an Act of the 11ppropri11te l..,eglsl11ture under this article, and
!\HY rules &P made Sh!lll have effect subject to the provisions
of any such Act."
Discussing the scope and powers of the President and Governor
under Article 309, a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of B.S
YttdllV v. Stllte of HttrYlln<t, held as under:
H 'AIR 1981 SC 561
BRAJENDRA SINGH YAMBEM v. UNION OF INDIA AND
ANR. (V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
·' ...... It is in this context that the proviso to Article 309
assumes relevance and importance. The State legislature
has the power to pass laws regulating the recruitment and
conditions of service of judicial officers of the State. But it
was necessary to make a suitable pro vision enabling the
exercise of that power until the passing of the law by the
legislature on that subject. The Constitution furnishes by its
provisions ample evidence that it abhors a vacuum. It has
therefore made provisions to deal with situations which arise
on account _Qf the __ ultimate repository of a power not
exercisingthfil._Qower. The proviso to Article 309 provides.
in so far as material. that until the State legislature P-asses a
law OJlllit;_J).articular s@ject, it shall be comp_\,'!tent to the
Goverqor .Jlf_thc~t.i!.t~_hLJlli!.ke _r!lks _x_c_gy liltiru,Uli~
recruitment and the conditions of service o.f the judicial
officers ofthc State. The Governor thu~ st.cps in when the
]egisl.nt11i:~_<:joes_J.!QL1l<;_L I11_~_JJ.9v.sr,_gE~!:£ised .Qy the
Governor underJ.l!.e_nroviso is thus 1!...QQWer which the
legislature is C9JI!J1~ent_to exercise but has in fact not yet
exercised. It par takes of the characteristics of t.he
lcgisiat ivc, not executive, power. It is legislative
power.
That the Clovernor possesses legislative power under our
Constitution is incontrovertible and, therefore. there is
nothing unique about the Governor"s power under the
proviso to Article 309 being in the nature of a legislative
power. By Article I 58. the Governor of a State is a part of
the legislature or the State. And the most obvious exercise
oflegislative power by the Governor is the power given to
him by Article 2 I 3 to promulgate Ordinances when the
legislature is not in session. Under that Article, he exercises
a power of the same kind which the legislature normally
exercises, the power to make laws. The heading of Chapter
IV of Part VI of the Constitution, in which Article 213
occurs. is significant: ·Legislative Power of the Governor".
The power of the Governor under the proviso to Article
309 to make appropriate rules is of the same kind. It is
legislative power. Under Article 213. he substitutes for the
357
I-I
A legislature because the legislature is in recess. Under the
proviso to Article 309, he substitutes for the legislature
because the legislature has not yet exercised its power to
pass an appropriate law on the subject."
(emphasis laid by this Court)
The distinction between the powers under A1ticles 77(3), 166(3)
and 309, regarding the framing of Rules and Regulations was discussed
by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of S11111pat Prakash v.
State of Jm111m1 1111d Kasl1111ir9. as under:-
" ...... As an example, under Article 77(3), the President,
and, under Article 166(3) the Governor of a State are
empowered to make rules for the more convenient
transaction of the. business_Q(Jbe Gove.rrm~Dt of .1!1dia.9.r
the Government of the State. as the ca~~-H:!fil'Jis:'-'1nd for
!he al.l.ocatl_Q_!l_fil11ong h'!inisterd_Qj'the saici.PJ.lsJni;:ss. It: for
the interpretation of these provisions, Section 21 of the
General Clauses Act is not applied, the result would be that
the rules once made by the President or a Governor would
become inflexible and the allocation of the business among
the Ministers would forever remain as laid down in the first
rules. Clearly, the power of amending these rules from time
to time to suit changing situations must be held to exist and
that power can only be found in these articles by applying
Section 21 of the General Clauses Act. Jl1ere arc other
~imili!J_f!!_le-m{1_king_pow~:? .. ,_1i_uch a~..!l~J2QY~'..er Qf makir)g
~ex.v..!s:.~J:\!Jes _ _!!illl~r:..8-LtL<: le.J.Q2_of_t.!.i~(9nsJitl!!L9!1" That
F power must also be exercisable from time to time and must
include within it the power to add to, amend, vaiy or rescind
any of those rules ...... "
(emphasis laid by this Court)
40. It becomes clear from a perusal of the constitutional provisions
G and the decisions by constitution benches of this Cou1t referred to supra
that the powers under Articles 77(3), 166(3) and 309 operate in completely
different fields. It would thus, be clear that the Rules framed in exercise
of power under Articles 77(3) and 166(3) cannot be compared while
exercising power under A1iicle 309 of the Constitution and framing rules
H ''AIR 1970 SC 1118
BRAJENDRA SINGH YAMBEM v. UNION OF !NOIA AND
ANR. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
and regulations for recruitment and conditions of service of persons
appointed to such posts either in connection with the affairs of the Union
government or a state government. It is for this reason that the statutory
exercise of power by the President of India under Rules 9(2)(b )(i) and
(ii) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 cannot be equated with power
exercised under Article 77(2) of the Constitution of India. The High
Courts and this Cow1 can exercise power of judicial review under Articles
226 and 32, respectively, of the Constitution oflndia in cases of statutory
exercise of power by the President or Governor. In the case of Dr.
Yas/nvanl Trimbak (supra), this Court held that the power of judicial
review is not available in case of executive exercise of power by the
President or the Governor. The said observation made by this Cou11 in
the said case is not tenable in law in view of the decision of this Court in
the landmark judgment of llis llo/i11ess Ke.1·1n•(ltut11d" B/111ruti
Sripmlagafr"ru & Ors. 1: Sl11te 1~l Kera/a 1111<1Anr.111 wherein this
Court has clearly held that the power of judicial review is part of the
basic structure of the Constitution of India. The relevant portion of the
judgment is extracted hereunder:
·•s 77 ...... The observations of Patanjal i Sastri, C.J ., in St(l/e
<!{Madras v. V.G. Rml' which have become locus classicus
need alone be repeated in this connection . .Judicial review
is unde11aken by the courts ''not out of any desire to tilt at
legislative authority in a crusader"s spirit. but in discharge
of a duty plainly laid down upon them by the Constitution".
The respondents have also contended that to let the court
have judicial review over constitutional amendments would
mean involving the court in political questions. To this the
answer may be given in the words of Lord Porter in
Co111111011wealth ofAustralia v. Bank of Nell' South Wales:
"The problem to be solved will often be not so much legal
as politicaL social or economic, yet it must be solved by a
Court of law. For where the dispute is. as here. not only
between Comnrnnwealth and citizen but between
Commonwealth and intervening States on the one hand and
citizens and States on the other, it is only the Court that can
decide the issue, it is vain to invoke the voice of Parliament."
_____ There is ample i;:videm:e in the Constitution itself to indicate
359
'"(1973)4SCC225 H
360
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016) 6 S.C.R.
that it creates a system of checks and balances by reason
of which powers are so distributed that none of the three
organs it sets up can become so pre-dominant as to disable
the others from exercising and discharging powers and
functions entrusted to them. Though the Constitution does
not lay down the principle of separation of powers in all its
rigidity as is the case in the United States Constitution yet it
envisages such a separation to a degree as was found in
Ranasinghe case. The judicial review provided expressly
in our Constitution by means of Articles 226 and 32 is one
of the features upon which hinges the system of checks
and balances ... "
The observation made by this Court in the case of Dr. Yasilwm1t
Trimhak (supra) to the extent that orders of sanction granted by the
Governor are outside the scope of judicial review, is untenable in law.
The same is contrary not only to the law laid down by this Court referred
to supra, but also the provisions of A1ticlcs 77(2) & 166(2) of the
Constitution of India. Therefore, the same has no application to the fact
situation for the reason that the President has exercised his statutory
power for grant of sanction under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972 to initiate the disciplinaiy action but not the executive action
against the appellant.
41. In the instant.case, the action of the Disciplinary Authority is
untenable in law for the reason that the interpretation of the CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972 which is sought to be made by the learned ASG
on behalf of the respondents amounts to deprivation of the Fundamental
Rights guaranteed to the appellant under Pait Ill of the Constitution of
India. Therefore, we have to hold that the disciplinary proceedings initiated
by the disciplinary authority after obtaining sanction from the President
of India under Ruic 9(2)(b)(i) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 are
liable to be quashed.
Answer to Point No. 3
42. For the aforesaid reasons, we answer the questions of law
that arose for consideration of this Court in favour of the appellant. The
Division Bench of the High Court erred in allowing the Writ Appeal
Nos. 39 and 40of2011. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be
set aside and accordingly, set aside.
BRAJENDRA SINGH YAMBEM v. UNION OF INDIA AND
ANR. [V. GOPALA GOWDA. J.]
43. Though we have answered the questions of law framed in
this case in favour of the appellant and set aside the impugned judgment
by allowing these appeals, however, having regard to the seriousness of
the al legations made against the appellant, in exercise of power of this
Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we direct the
Disciplinary Authority to continue the disciplinary proceedings and
conclude them within six months in accordance with the relevant provisions
of law as well as the principles of natural justice. If the same are not
completed within the said time period by the disciplinary authority, the
said liberty granted by this Court in this order to the respondents will not
ensue to their benefit.
44. !"he Appeals are partly allowed only to the extent of answering
the legal questions framed and the impugned judgment and order is set
aside to that extent with the above liberty given to the respondents. All
the pending applications are disposed of. No costs.
Kalpuna K. lripathy Appeals partl) all011cd.
361