Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 199 (GAU)

State of Tripura and Ors. v. Pranesh Chakraborty

2012-02-13

S.R.SEN, U.B.SAHA

body2012
U.B. Saha, J.— 1. By this appeal, the appellant-State has challenged the order, dated 24.8.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 07 of 1998 (Re-CR. 242 of 1998) whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition setting aside and quashing the order of penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority on 31.1.1996 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition) and the order of the Appellate Authority, dated 8.12.1997 (Annexure B to the writ petition). 2. Heard Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Additional GA, appearing for the State-appellants as well as Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel, appearing for the sole respondent-writ petitioner. 3. Facts need to be discussed as follows : - On 9.7.1995, Sunday, the respondent-petitioner was allocated with the duties between 4.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. in the News Bureau. A tour programme of the Governor of Tripura was handed over to the petitioner, which was sent from the Governor's Secretariat to the effect that the Governor of Tripura would visit the Temple of Chaturdas Devta on 9.7.1995 and would offer puja and talk to the chief priest. The respondent-writ petitioner being a reporter was under obligation to translate the said message sent from the Governor's House into a news item for publication in the form of press release. Accordingly, the petitioner translated the said message into a news item and kept the same were collected for formal release under the authority of the competent person. As 9.7.1995 was Sunday, the petitioner received no intimation as to the cancellation of the said programme of the Governor up to 7.00 p.m. In that situation, he had no other option but to consider the said message as final one and thereby translated it as news item and discharged his part of the duty. Unfortunately, the said news item was given as a press release due to inadvertence or mistake of somebody in the office of the petitioner for which, the petitioner had no knowledge or responsibility in any manner whatsoever. 4. Thereafter, on 10.7.1995, the petitioner was handed over a show cause notice whereby he was asked to explain the circumstances under which the news item was published and how such dereliction of duty could occur and as to why a proceeding under C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules should not be proposed against the petitioner. 4. Thereafter, on 10.7.1995, the petitioner was handed over a show cause notice whereby he was asked to explain the circumstances under which the news item was published and how such dereliction of duty could occur and as to why a proceeding under C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules should not be proposed against the petitioner. On 11.7.1995, the petitioner also received an order of suspension issued by the Additional Director, Information and Cultural Affairs, respondent No. 4 in writ petition. 5. On 3.8.1995, the petitioner received another Memorandum, dated 28.7.1995 whereby and whereunder, the respondent proposed to take action against the petitioner under rule 16 of C.C.S (C.C.A.) Rules, 1965 on the ground of negligence of duty and preparation of fabricated news story for press release on 9.7.1995 in connection of the visit of His Excellency, the Governor of Tripura to the Chaturdas Devta Temple (14-Goddess Temple) and the petitioner was given ten days time to submit his representation. 6. On 10.8.1995 the petitioner submitted his representation stating, inter alia, that he came to the news bureau on 9.7.1995, Sunday, at 4.00 p.m. and the guard handed over the programme of visit of His Excellency, the Governor of Tripura, and as per duty roaster, he worked there up to 7.00 p.m. But, till that time, no cancellation of the said programme was intimated to the petitioner. So, the petitioner treated the said programme as final and prepared a report with due importance and priority basis on that day, which was wrongly released as press release. The petitioner also denied that he had any negligence or he had fabricated any news story, rather he discharged his duty sincerely. 7. Upon receipt of the representation of the respondent-writ petitioner, vide Memorandum dated 13.10.1995, the appellant-respondent No. 4 proposed to take action against him under rule 16 of C.C.S (C.C.A.), 1965 and also to impose minor penalty against him. At the same time, he was also given an opportunity to make representation against the said proposal and for personal hearing within three weeks from the date of receipt of the said Memorandum and ultimately after hearing the petitioner-in-person, Additional Director, ICAT, respondent No. 4 by order, dated 31.1.1996, imposed penalty of withholding of two periodical increments of pay of the respondent-writ petitioner without cumulative effect. 8. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent-writ petitioner preferred an appeal to the statutory appellate authority. 9. 8. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent-writ petitioner preferred an appeal to the statutory appellate authority. 9. As the appeal was not disposed of within time, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being Civil Rule No. 519 of 1997. On contest, the same was disposed of. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this court directing the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal preferred by the respondent-petitioner within two months. As directed by the learned Single Judge of this court in Civil Rule No. 519 of 1997, the statutory appellate authority disposed the appeal of the petitioner upholding the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority. 10. Being aggrieved by the orders of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, respondent-writ petitioner filed another writ petition being Civil Rule No. 07 of 1998 wherein the learned Single Judge after hearing the parties, set aside the order of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority by his order, dated 24.8.2007. Hence, this appeal. 11. Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Additional GA while urging for setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge would contend that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the nature of duty of the respondent-writ petitioner and passed the impugned order without any valid reason. She further submits that the respondent-writ petitioner was given personal hearing and there was no error committed either by the disciplinary authority or by the appellate authority and it was appellant's sole responsibility to publish correct news and change thereof. Thus, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is required to be set aside. 12. Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel while supporting the judgment of the learned Single Judge resisting the submission of Ms. Lodh would contend that learned Single Judge rightly passed the impugned order with the valid reasons. Thus, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is required to be set aside. 12. Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel while supporting the judgment of the learned Single Judge resisting the submission of Ms. Lodh would contend that learned Single Judge rightly passed the impugned order with the valid reasons. He also submits that the learned Single Judge in his judgment specifically stated that the various grounds of the appeal had not been dealt with by the appellate authority and the disciplinary authority also did not consider the facts that the petitioner was not informed regarding the cancellation of the news item relating to the visit of His Excellency, the Governor at Chaturdash Devta Temple and as the respondent-writ petitioner was not aware about the subsequent cancellation, he did not commit any wrong translating the message into a news item. 13. We have gone through the judgment of the learned Single Judge. It appears from the impugned judgment that the learned Single Judge has considered the material facts involved in the matter and also pointed out that neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority considered the specific plea of the respondent-writ petitioner, inter alia, that he was not informed regarding the cancellation of the programme of the Governor. Therefore, according to us, the learned Single Judge did not commit any wrong by setting aside the order, dated 31.1.1996 and order, dated 18.12.1997 passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority, respectively. Thus, no interference with the impugned judgment is called for on our part. 14. We fully agree with the detailed discussion of the learned Single Judge. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 16. No order as to cost. _____________