JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard learned counsel, Ms. S. Deb (Gupta) for the petitioner and learned Addl. G.A., Mr. S. Chakraborty for the Staterespondents. 2. The petitioner while working as a Superintendent of Taxes under the Finance Department, Govt. of Tripura was entrusted with the charge of Certificate Officer to realize the dues from the defaulters pursuant to the certificates issued by the appropriate authority. By Memo dated 02.04.2007 issued by the Commissioner and Secretary of the Finance Department, Govt. of Tripura (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), a disciplinary proceeding was proposed to be initiated against the petitioner on the following Article of Charge : “No.F.8(12)/TAX/86/ Government of Tripura Finance Department (Taxes & Excise) Dated, the 2nd April 2007 MEMORANDUM It is proposed to hold an enquiry against Smt. Mina Debbarma, Superintendent of Taxes (under suspension), Government of Tripura, Agartala under rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Central and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The substance of imputation of misconduct or lack of integrity and devotion to duty in respect of which the enquiry is proposed to be held is set out in the enclosed statement of articles of charge (Annexure-I). A statement of the imputation of misconduct or lack of integrity and devotion to duty in support of each article of charge is enclosed (Annexure-II). A list of documents by which and a list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained are also enclosed (Annexurre-III & IV). 2. Smt, Mina Debbarma, Superintendent of Taxes (under suspension) is directed to submit within 10(ten) days of the receipt of this Memorandum a written statement of her defence and also to state whether she desires to be heard in person. 3. She is informed that an enquiry will be held only in respect of these articles of charges as are not admitted. She should therefore, specifically admit or deny each article of charge. 4. 3. She is informed that an enquiry will be held only in respect of these articles of charges as are not admitted. She should therefore, specifically admit or deny each article of charge. 4. Smt. Mina Debbarma, Superintendent of Taxes (under suspension) is further informed that if she does not submit her written statement of defence on or before the date specified in para 2 above, or does not appear in person before the Inquiring Authority or otherwise falls or refuses to comply with the provisions of Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 or the orders/directions issued in pursuance of the said rule the enquiry against her may be held ex-parte. 5. Smt. Debbarma, shall not bring or attempt to bring any political or outside influence to bear upon any superior authority to further her interest in respect of matters pertaining to her service under the Government. If any representation is received on her behalf from another person in respect of any matter dealt with in these proceedings, it will be presumed that Smt. Mina Debbarma, Superintendent of Taxes is aware of such a representation and that it has been made at her instance and action will be taken against her for violation of Rule 20 of the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988. The receipt of this Memorandum may be acknowledged. Sd/- Illegible (S.K. Roy) Commissioner and Secretary Government of Tripura. To Smt. Mina Debbarma Superintendent of Taxes (Under Suspension), Agartala, Tripura” 3. The statement of misconduct annexed to the Memo dated 02.04.2007 as annexure-II reads as follows :- “STATEMENT OF IMPOSISTION OF MISCONDUCT OR MISBEHAVIOUR IN SUPPORT OF EACH ARTICLE OF CHARGES. 1.1. Smt. Mina Debbarma, Superintendent of Taxes (under suspension) of the office of the Commissioner of Taxes was assigned with the responsibility of Certificate cases in the capacity of Certificate Officer vide Order No.F.IV-4(6)-TAX/88/6050-81 DATED 18-04-06 in addition to second Officer of Charge-II vide order No.F.IV-12(1) TAX/86(P)/7903-10 dated 29.05.06. As a Certificate Officer she was responsible to dispose pending Certificate Cases with realization of dues as per target fixed. But since her joining as Certificate Officer she failed to achieve the target upto 12th February, 2007 while pendency of certificate cases were 870 invoving dues amounting to Rs.891.00 lacs. As a Certificate Officer she was responsible to dispose pending Certificate Cases with realization of dues as per target fixed. But since her joining as Certificate Officer she failed to achieve the target upto 12th February, 2007 while pendency of certificate cases were 870 invoving dues amounting to Rs.891.00 lacs. 1.2 For realization of dues she was given a target of Rs.12,000 only for the year 2006-07 by the Commissioner of Taxes. But she failed to realise the dues as per target fixed-resultantly the Government has to sustain loss of revenue. 1.3 Despite knowing of the fact that certificate cases are related to realization of dues from certificate debtors in the interest of government revenue and attract special attention and require to be disposed of on priority, Smt. Mina Debbarma did not take any fruitful step towards disposal of huge pending certificate cases. And as such she failed to maintain devotion to her duty and did an act which is unbecoming for a Government employee. 1.4 The Public Accounts Committee in its several meeting pointed out the matter of non-realization of dues from certificate debtors and directed the department for disposal of the pending cases on priority. Accordingly, the status of the certificate cases was reviewed in the monthly meeting held on 12.02.2007 and performance of Smt. Debbarma was found unsatisfactory which was duly recorded in the minutes issued vide No.F.VIII-1(1)-TAX/2006/2384-410 dated 20.02.2007. 1.5. As per instruction of the authority, Sri Sudhangshu Rn. Roy. Asstt. Commissioner of Taxes, Govt of Tripura, Agartala reviewed the status of Certificate cases and submitted his report in the file Note Sheet on 12.02.2007 wherein it is evident that Smt. Debbarma filed to dispose certificate cases and could not realise certificate dues as per target fixed which shows her negligence in performing her assigned duty. 1.6. From the above analysis it is obvious that Smt. Debbarma failed to exercise due diligence towards disposal of pending certificate cases and as such failed to achieve the target of realization of dues which attributed her poor performance and negligence in duty conferred upon her and violated Rule 3 of the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988.” 4. The petitioner submitted her written statement of defence in response to Memo dated 02.04.2007, copy of which marked as Annexure3 to the writ petition, reads as follows: “To The Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Tripura, Finance Department (Taxes and Excise), Agartala. The petitioner submitted her written statement of defence in response to Memo dated 02.04.2007, copy of which marked as Annexure3 to the writ petition, reads as follows: “To The Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Tripura, Finance Department (Taxes and Excise), Agartala. Subject: Written statement in defence with reference to the Memorandum No. F. (12)/TAX/86 dated 2nd April, 2007. Sir, With due regard I beg to invite a reference to the Memorandum cited above and submit that the charge brought against me that I failed to achieve the fixed target till 12.2.2007 causing loss of revenue to the Government is not admitted by me. I also do not admit that there was any poor, indifferent performance and negligence in my duty or I failed to maintain devotion to duty or acted in un-becoming manner violating Rule-3 of the Tripura Civil Service(Conduct) rules, 1988. From the Annexure-1 itself it would be revealed that I was assigned with the responsibilities of Certificate Officer by an order vide No.F. IV 4(6)-TAX/88/6050-81 dated 18.4.2006 in addition to Second Officer, Charge-II vide order No. F.IV-1291)TAX/86(P)/7903-10 dated 29.5.2006. When that being the factual backdrop I was served with the order of suspension in the 4th week of February, 2007 more particularly on 22.02.2007. In view of that your honour may be pleased to find that the charge brought against me is not called for and I am entitled to be exonerated by your honour. I also desire to be heard in person. I, therefore, pray to your honour to kindly exonerate me from the charge by revoking the proceeding. And for this act of kindness I shall ever pray. Yours Faithfully Dated, Agartala The 10th April,2007 (Smti. Mina Debbarma) Superintendent of Taxes (Under Suspension) Agartala, West Tripura” 5. The disciplinary authority directed inquiry under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 and accordingly the Commissioner of Departmental Inquiries, Govt. of Tripura was entrusted the charge of inquiry. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Departmental Inquiries conducted the inquiry and submitted report dated 12.01.2009 holding that the charge framed against the petitioner was proved. The disciplinary authority directed inquiry under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 and accordingly the Commissioner of Departmental Inquiries, Govt. of Tripura was entrusted the charge of inquiry. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Departmental Inquiries conducted the inquiry and submitted report dated 12.01.2009 holding that the charge framed against the petitioner was proved. The disciplinary authority by Memo dated 06.05.2009 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) accepted the report of the inquiring authority and proposed the punishment of major penalty of reduction to the lowest of the time scale of pay in the initial grade without a bar to future promotion and the reduction will be for a period of 3 (three) years during which she will not earn any increment and that her suspension shall not be treated as on duty and further that financial benefit other than what has been paid as subsistence allowance should not be given to her. 6. The petitioner submitted her written reply and thereafter the disciplinary authority by impugned order dated 24.11.2009 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) imposed following penalty upon the petitioner: “………………………….. NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned in exercise of the powers conferred by RULE 19 (i) of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 and in consultation with the Tripura Public Service Commission, hereby imposes upon Smt. Mina Debbarma the major penalty of reduction to the lowest of the time scale of pay in the initial grade without a bar to future promotion for a period of 2(two) years and during the period of such reduction she will earn increment of pay.” 7. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Tripura and the Chief Secretary by order dated 04.11.2010 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) upheld the order of the disciplinary authority. 8. I am quite aware that the power of judicial review of the action of the administrative authority is very limited. While a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against an officer of the department by the appropriate authority for misconduct in the discharge of his official duty and the disciplinary authority arrived at a conclusion after following the due procedure of inquiry that the officer concerned is guilty of misconduct, and, finding is based on some legal evidence and materials on record, the Court should not sit as a appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to substitute the finding of the disciplinary authority with its own finding. Definitely the Court has a power of judicial review but it should be exercised only in a given case where the principles of natural justice have been violated and/or where the finding of the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If it is found that there was some material in the record on the basis of which the disciplinary authority came to the conclusion of misconduct of its employee/officer, the Court should not ordinarily interfere in such finding. 9. Ms. Deb (Gupta), learned counsel emphatically submitted that the petitioner was a Superintendent of Taxes of Charge-II and she was entrusted with the works of Certificate Officer only for a limited period of about a month. Huge numbers of certificate cases were pending and for the shortage of staff and other deficiencies in the department she could not dispose of the cases and for that she cannot be held solely responsible for such disproportionate punishment. The petitioner in her written statement of defence did not clearly state as to for which period she was In-charge of Certificate Officer. In her examination under Rule 14(18) of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 recorded by the Inquiring Authority she clearly admitted that the charge of Certificate Officer remained with her till February 2007 in addition to the charge of Superintendent of Taxes, Charge-II. So, the argument advanced by learned counsel, Ms. Deb(Gupta) is not supported by any evidence rather the statement of the petitioner itself shows that she was In-charge of the Certificate Officer till February 2007. It is an admitted position that during the period she was In-charge of the Certificate Officer, from 18.04.2006 to February 2007 she could dispose only one case and could not reach near to the target fixed by the authority. The report of the Inquiring Authority shows that there was evidence that the petitioner as a Certificate Officer could dispose only one case and an amount of Rs.239/- only was realized whereas the target fixed for her was Rs.12,000/- for the year 2006-2007. According to the disciplinary authority it was because of indifference and because of lack of devotion to the duty entrusted to the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel, Ms. Deb (Gupta) submitted that according to the office order issued by the Finance Department (Annexure-8) the duties of Certificate Officer ought to be entrusted only to the Asstt. Commissioner rank officer and not to a Superintendent of Taxes. 10. Learned counsel, Ms. Deb (Gupta) submitted that according to the office order issued by the Finance Department (Annexure-8) the duties of Certificate Officer ought to be entrusted only to the Asstt. Commissioner rank officer and not to a Superintendent of Taxes. She was illegally entrusted with the charge of Certificate Officer and therefore, she cannot be held responsible for misconduct. 11. This argument of learned counsel, Ms. Deb (Gupta) is also not acceptable since she was working as an officer of the department, a Superintendent of Taxes and when she was entrusted with the charge of Certificate Officer she did not dispute it, rather, she accepted the charge whereas she did not function to discharge her duties. 12. Ms. Deb (Gupta), learned counsel further submitted that the allegation cannot be termed as misconduct since there was shortage of staff and other deficiencies. The petitioner did not adduce any evidence to show that there was shortage of staff or other deficiencies for which she could not discharge her duties to the extent of expectation of the authority. Non performance or poor performance is no doubt a misconduct as stipulated in the Conduct Rules. Therefore, in the case of the petitioner while certain target was fixed and she was entrusted the charge of Certificate Officer to achieve the target but she could not perform her duty to the extent of the satisfaction of the authority, definitely it amounts to a misconduct on her part and, therefore, punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority cannot be said to be altogether wrong and illegal. 13. In respect of quantum of punishment, it cannot be said to be disproportionate to the allegation and hence, the writ petition is found to be devoid of any merit and stands dismissed.