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 5WP(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 wouldWP(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 awardedWP(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
[ad_1]
Source link