JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.K. Sharma 1. The petitioner, who has since retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2003, is aggrieved by the Annexure-5 order dated 16.12.2010, passed by the disciplinary authority imposing the penalty of recovery of an amount of Rs. 69,766/- from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. The said order has been passed pursuant to a departmental proceeding. The petitioner while was serving as In-charge Chief Engineer (Agri), was served with a memorandum of charge sheet dated 1.9.2006, by which altogether 3(three) charges were leveled. For a ready reference, the said charges are reproduced below :- ARTICLE - I Sri. Babul Kr. Das while working as In-charge Chief Engineer, Department of Agriculture failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to his duties and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government employee in connection with the construction work of a Teliamura Cold Storage which was under direct supervision of Sri. Das. One major defect was detected by the M.C. Dutta Committee that bamboo was provided in place of timber in the intermediate potato storing racks / tires and also ground floor timber was originally envisaged in the sanctioned estimate. The spacing of bamboo as provided is so close which is serious defects in cold air circulation mechanism. Sri. Das is liable for the causes of damage 8500 bags (425 MT) of potato seeds and also for financial losses of the Government. Thus Sri. Das, Ex. In-Charge Chief Engineer by his above act has shown lack of integrity and devotion to his official duties with ill motive and violated the provision of Rule-3 of Tripura Civil Service Conduct Rule 1988 for which Sri. Das renders himself liable for being charge sheeted for facing Inquiry under Rule 14 of CCS (CC & A) 1965 read with Rule 11 ibid. ARTICLE - II Sri. Babul Kumar Das while working as In-charge Chief Engineer Agriculture Department failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to his duties and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government employee in connection with the construction work of Teliamura Cold Storage which was under direct supervision of Sri. Das. Works for installation of Cold Storage plant was given to RAFCO a local entrepreneur who was not sufficient technical experienced for installation and maintenance of a Cold Storage plant. So Sri. Das. Works for installation of Cold Storage plant was given to RAFCO a local entrepreneur who was not sufficient technical experienced for installation and maintenance of a Cold Storage plant. So Sri. Das was liable for awarding the work to a non experienced technical local Agency. Thus Sri. Das, Ex. In-charge Chief Engineer, Agriculture Department by his above act has shown lack of integrity and devotion to his official duties with ill motive and violated the provision of Rule - 3 of Tripura Civil Service Conduct Rule 1988 for which Sri. Das renders himself liable for being charge sheeted for facing inquiry under Rule 14 of CCS (CC & A) 1985 read with rule 11 ibid. ARTICLE -III Sri. Babul Kumar Das while working as In-Charge Chief Engineer, Agriculture Department failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to his duties and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government employee in connection with the construction work of Teliamura Cold Storage which was under direct supervision of Sri. Das. The Cold Storage plant was not functioning properly from the beginning of its operation for which 8500 bags of potato were damaged and rotten. The temperature on the top floor was comparatively cooler than the temperature of ground floor. Woozing of drops of water on potatoes was also a cause of damage and sprouting. Sri. Das is liable for damage of 500 MT plant and also liable for financial loss of the Government. Thus Sri. Das, Ex. In-charge Chief Engineer, Agriculture Department by his above act has shown lack of integrity and devotion to his official duties with ill motive and violated the provision of Rule - 3 of Tripura Civil Service Conduct Rule, 1988 for which Sri. Das renders himself liable for being charge sheeted for facing inquiry under Rule 14 of CCS (CC & A) 1965 read with Rule 11 ibid. 2. In due course, an enquiry was conducted relating to the aforesaid charges and the Inquiry Officer by his report dated 5.10.2010 virtually held the petitioner not guilty of any one of the charges, so far as the same relates to causing any financial loss to the Government. For convenience, the Inquiry Officer formulated his own points for decision on the basis of the aforesaid three charges, which are reproduced below :- POINTS FOR DECISION :- Point No. (i) :- Whether Sri. Babul Kr. For convenience, the Inquiry Officer formulated his own points for decision on the basis of the aforesaid three charges, which are reproduced below :- POINTS FOR DECISION :- Point No. (i) :- Whether Sri. Babul Kr. Das, A.O. while functioning as In-charge Chief Engineer, Department of Agriculture provided bamboo in place of timber in the potato storing rack / tires. Point No. (ii) :- Whether Sri. Babul Kr. Das, A.O. while functioning as In-charge Chief Engineer, Department of Agriculture did not provide proper spacing in the storing rack / tires which caused damage of 8500 bags (425 MT) of potato seeds by obstructing circulation of cold air due to close spacing of rack. Point No. (iii) :- Whether Sri. Babul Kr. Das, A.O. while functioning as In-charge Chief Engineer, Department of Agriculture awarded the construction work of Teliamura cold storage plant to a non experienced technical local Agency M/s. RAFCO with ill motive. Point No. (iv) :- Whether Sri. Babul Kr. Das, A.O. while functioning as In-charge Chief Engineer, Department of Agriculture is responsible for damage of 8500 bags of potatoes for improper functioning of Teliamura cold storage plant since the beginning of its operation due to temperature on top floor comparatively cooler than the ground and oozing of drops of water on potatoes causing sprouting and damage. Point No. (v) :- Whether by any act as mentioned at point No. (i) to (iv) above, Sri. Babul Kr. Das, A.O. while functioning as In-charge Chief Engineer, Department of Agriculture failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and acted in a manner which is unbecoming of Government servant violating Rule-3 of the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988. 3. On the basis of the analysis and enquiry made, the Inquiry Officer in his report has held that so far as the point No. 1 is concerned, the same is established. As regards the other points, the Inquiry officer has held that the said points are not established. 4. I have heard Mr. K.N. Bhattacharji, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Acharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. B. Datta, learned State Counsel. Mr. As regards the other points, the Inquiry officer has held that the said points are not established. 4. I have heard Mr. K.N. Bhattacharji, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Acharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. B. Datta, learned State Counsel. Mr. K.N. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referring to the analysis and assessment of the evidence made by the Inquiry Officer in respect of all the points, has submitted that on reading together the findings arrived at by the Inquiry officer, it cannot be said that the point No. 1 said to have been established can lead to the inference that the petitioner was responsible for any pecuniary loss caused to the Government. On the other hand, Mr. B. Datta, learned State Counsel submits that since the Article of Charge No. 1 is partially established, there is nothing wrong in imposing the penalty of recovery of the amount of Rs. 69,766/-. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the materials on records. 6. The charges levelled against the petitioner have been noted above. The Inquiry Officer for convenience shake made his own points for decision on the basis of the said charges. Article No. 1 has two components as enumerated in points No. 1 and 2, quoted above. While answering the point No. 1, the Inquiry Officer found that although in the sanctioned estimate, the racks / tires of timber were originally envisaged but bamboo racks had to be provided at the time of construction of the cold storage plant, inasmuch as, there was restriction of extraction of trees at reserved forests and other Govt. land as per the order passed by the Apex Court in WP (C) No. 202/1995. It was in such circumstances, bamboo racks were provided in place of timber racks. 7. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the Inquiry Officer, although, held in his report that, bamboo racks were provided in place of timber racks, but at the same time exonerated the petitioner from the other component of the charge while discussing the point No. 2, quoted above. It will be pertinent to mention here that the Inquiry Officer has exonerated the petitioner from all other charges while discussing the point Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5. It will be pertinent to mention here that the Inquiry Officer has exonerated the petitioner from all other charges while discussing the point Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5. In fact, in point No. 5, the Inquiry officer has observed that although point No. 1 has been decided in favour of the prosecution but the other points having been decided against the prosecution, the petitioner cannot be said to have failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant leading to violation of Rule 3 of the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988. 8. For a ready reference, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, in respect of point Nos. 1 & 2 forming the charge No. 1 is quoted below :- Point No. (i) : It appears from the M.C. Dutta Committee report (Exbt. S/1) that racks / tiers of timber were originally envisaged in the sanctioned estimate but bamboo racks were provided in place of timber at the time of construction of Teliamura Cold Storage plant. This is also corroborated by the written brief of argument of the A.O. wherein it is accepted that bamboo racks were provided instead of wood due to restriction imposed on extraction of trees in reserve forests and other Govt. land as per verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court given in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995. It is therefore, accepted by the A.O. that bamboo racks were provided in place of timber as envisaged in the sanctioned estimate. In the result Point No. (i) is answered in affirmative and decided in favour of the prosecution and against the defence. Point No. (ii) : Prosecution could not produce any document specifying designed spacing of racks as per sanctioned estimate which should have been provided in the Cold Storage plant. Due to which, Sri. Babul Kr. Das, A.O. cannot be held guilty on mere grounds of providing close spacing of bamboo racks. Thus, the Prosecution failed to prove that Sri. Babul Kr. Das, A.O. is guilty of providing close spacing of bamboo racks as no evidence could be given specifying the designed spacing of racks as per sanctioned estimate. In the result, Point No. (ii) is answered in the negative and decided against the prosecution and in favour of defence. 9. Thus, the Prosecution failed to prove that Sri. Babul Kr. Das, A.O. is guilty of providing close spacing of bamboo racks as no evidence could be given specifying the designed spacing of racks as per sanctioned estimate. In the result, Point No. (ii) is answered in the negative and decided against the prosecution and in favour of defence. 9. On a totality of the reading of the enquiry report, it can safely be concluded that the Inquiry officer did not hold the petitioner guilty of the main component of the item No. 1. On the other hand, he has been exonerated of the Article of charge No. 2 & 3. The petitioner had explained the circumstances in which he had to use bamboo racks. Because of the apex Court's order putting restriction on extraction of trees, the petitioner could not make arrangement of timber racks and accordingly with the full knowledge of the authority, he had to arrange for bamboo racks. That apart, the fact of the matter is that because of installation of bamboo racks, the Govt. did not suffer any loss, inasmuch as, there is clear finding that the petitioner was not guilty of any such charge. 10. After the aforesaid enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned Annexure-5 order dated 16.12.2010 directing recovery of Rs. 69,766/-. The said order is devoid of any reason. It simply recites the enquiry proceeding that was initiated against the petitioner and that the approval of the Governor of Tripura and the Tripura Public Service Commission, was obtained for imposing the penalty of recovery of Rs. 69,766/-. The said order does not reflect any thing as to on what basis the said amount was calculated. 11. The Inquiry officer having held the petitioner not guilty of charges, the disciplinary authority could not have imposed the penalty of recovery of the aforesaid amount without analyzing anything as to the effect of the enquiry report on a total reading of the same. As to why the bamboo racks had to be used having been explained and the said explanation having been accepted by the Inquiry Officer, merely because the point No. 1 has been answered in favour of the prosecution, that by itself cannot entail any punishment against the petitioner. As to why the bamboo racks had to be used having been explained and the said explanation having been accepted by the Inquiry Officer, merely because the point No. 1 has been answered in favour of the prosecution, that by itself cannot entail any punishment against the petitioner. If the disciplinary authority wanted to disagree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, it ought to have assigned reason and the note of disagreement ought to have been communicated to the petitioner enabling him to make a representation. 12. On a totality of the circumstances and reading of the Inquiry report in a composite manner, there is no escape from the conclusion that the charges against the petitioner of causing pecuniary loss to the Govt. could not be established. As to why the bamboo racks had to be used having been explained and there being no denial of the same, the petitioner cannot be held responsible on the other charges which were also not established in the enquiry proceeding. 13. In view of the above, I have no hesitation to set aside and quash the order dated 16.12.2010 (Annexure-5). Consequently, the petitioner will be entitled to get back the amount in question from the Disciplinary Authority. The said amount be returned to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible but at any rate not later then 30.4.2012. The writ petition is allowed, without however, any order as to costs. Petition allowed