Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 102 (TRI)

Ajoy Kr. Das v. State of Tripura

2020-08-05

AKIL KURESHI

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 08.09.2005 passed by the disciplinary authority by which the petitioner was dismissed from service pursuant to a departmental inquiry conducted by the said authority. 2. Brief facts are as under: The petitioner was employed as a Rifleman in Tripura State Rifles. He was served with the charge sheet dated 06.07.2005 in which two charges had levelled against him. Charge Article-I was that the petitioner had received a large amount of money from one Shri Pradip Deb and several other persons by way of a bribe on an assurance that he would secure jobs for them in Tripura State Rifles. In Charge Article-II it was alleged that the petitioner had cheated said Shri Pradip Deb and others on a false promise of providing them a job, he accepted money for such purpose and had made false and fake promises of securing appointments. The petitioner had thus committed gross misconduct. The petitioner resisted the charges and contended that he was innocent. In a communication dated 01.12.2004 made by the petitioner to the Inquiry Officer he did admit to having taken money from said Shri Pradip Deb and others, he denied that such collection of money was for securing a Government job. His clarification was that he had purchased a piece of land in Agartala for which he needed money and for which purpose he had raised this friendly loan. The complaints made against him of having given false promise to secure Government jobs were totally incorrect. 3. During the pendency of the departmental inquiry, a criminal case was also launched against the petitioner. The petitioner had urged the Inquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority that the inquiry be kept in abeyance till the criminal case is completed since the charges and the departmental inquiry as well as the criminal case were identical. The said authorities did not accept the request and the departmental inquiry continued despite the pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were established. The disciplinary authority invited the petitioner's representation and thereupon passed the impugned order of punishment dated 08.09.2005. He assessed the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the charges against the petitioner were proved. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were established. The disciplinary authority invited the petitioner's representation and thereupon passed the impugned order of punishment dated 08.09.2005. He assessed the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the charges against the petitioner were proved. He noted that during the course of the inquiry it had come on record that an appointment letter was also given to Shri Pradip Deb on which the signature of the appointing authority was forged. He also noted that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner. He was arrested by Kachucherra police. However, on 09.08.2004 while he was being shifted from one place to another, the petitioner escaped from the police custody and remained untraced for a long time. Considering the seriousness of the charges, he imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. Against the said order the petitioner preferred departmental appeal which was dismissed on 27.06.2009. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred a revision petition. The revision petition was dismissed on 01.01.2015. Thereupon, this petition has been filed. 4. Mr. A. Sengupta, learned counsel for the petitioner raised one single contention namely, that for the same allegations, based on the same evidence as in the departmental inquiry, a criminal case was also instituted against the petitioner. Ideally, the department ought to have waited for the outcome of such a criminal case before proceeding further with the departmental inquiry. In any case, the counsel pointed out that the petitioner was initially convicted for the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short) by the learned Magistrate by a judgment dated 04.05.2006. However, the petitioner had preferred appeal against the said judgment of conviction. The Sessions Court by a judgment dated 27.09.2006 allowed the appeal and acquitted the petitioner. Against such judgment the State had preferred appeal before the High Court. High Court had dismissed the appeal by a judgment dated 04.08.2014. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had brought to the notice of the appellate authority his acquittal by the Sessions Court. To the revisional authority he had also pointed out that even the High Court had acquitted the petitioner. Both these authorities totally failed to take into consideration the effect of acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal proceedings. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had brought to the notice of the appellate authority his acquittal by the Sessions Court. To the revisional authority he had also pointed out that even the High Court had acquitted the petitioner. Both these authorities totally failed to take into consideration the effect of acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal proceedings. The charges were based on some set of facts in the departmental inquiry as well as in the criminal case. The evidence was also identical. The petitioner was honourably acquitted and not merely given benefit of doubt. His acquittal thus had a direct effect on the departmental inquiry. In support of his contentions, he relied on following decisions: (i) In case of S. Bhaskar Reddy and another versus Superintendent of Police & another reported in (2015) 2 SCC 365 ; (ii) In case of G.M. Tank versus State of Gujarat & another reported in AIR 2006 SC 2129 ; 5. On the other hand, Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the petition contending that the petitioner had committed serious misconduct. The charges were proved during the departmental inquiry. The level of proof required in the domestic inquiry is vastly different from that required in the criminal proceedings. Acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case, therefore, would not automatically mean that he must be exonerated in the departmental inquiry. He submitted that there was sufficient evidence in the departmental inquiry to hold that the charges were proved. The petition should therefore be dismissed. 6. Perusal of the documents on record would show that the charges against the delinquent were that while posted at 3rd Bn. TSR, Kachucherra had collected huge amounts from Pradip Deb and others on an assurance for providing jobs in TSR. He had thus employed fraudulent means for his wrongful gain. It was also alleged that having accepted such bribe the delinquent provided an order of appointment to Shri Pradip Deb by forging the signature of the appointing authority. During the course of the inquiry the department examined various witnesses who supported the allegations against the petitioner. In fact, several witnesses had deposed before the Inquiry Officer suggesting that money was paid to the delinquent on an assurance for providing a Government job. It was also established that a forged appointment order was provided by the petitioner in favour of one of them. In fact, several witnesses had deposed before the Inquiry Officer suggesting that money was paid to the delinquent on an assurance for providing a Government job. It was also established that a forged appointment order was provided by the petitioner in favour of one of them. The Inquiry Officer in his detailed report dated 06.07.2005 analyzed such evidence and held that the charges were proved. He also referred to documentary evidence in support of his inclusions. He relied on the statements of prosecution witnesses Gouranga Deb, Khokan Deb, Parameswar Das etc. who had testified that the petitioner was paid Rs. 15,000/- for securing a job in TSR in two installments of Rs.6,000/- and Rs.9,000/-. He referred to the statement of witness Adhir Barman who had stated that the petitioner had received Rs. 10,000/- from Harish Das for a similar assurance for a Government job. He also noted that the letter of appointment was handed over by the petitioner to Shri Pradip Deb and such letter was a forged one. He, therefore, concluded that both charges were proved. 7. The disciplinary authority thereupon passed the impugned order dated 08.09.2005 imposing punishment of dismissal from service. 8. As noted, the main ground pressed by the counsel for the petitioner was that by the time the petitioner's appeal and revision were decided, the petitioner was already acquitted by the Criminal Courts in relation to the same incident. The disciplinary authority ought to have waited for the outcome of the criminal cases. In any case, when the petitioner was acquitted in a criminal case, the appellate and the revisional authority ought to have set aside the order of dismissal. 9. As is well settled, there is a fundamental difference in the level of proof required in a criminal case vis- -vis a departmental inquiry. The standard of proof demanded in a criminal case is one of proof beyond reasonable doubt whereas the departmental proceedings proceed on the footing of preponderance of probabilities. The findings of the Criminal Court, therefore, cannot in all cases be superimposed in departmental proceedings since both stand on different footing. In the present case, the Criminal Court has referred to the prosecution witnesses and found elements of doubt sufficient to acquit the accused. However, these witnesses had appeared independently before the departmental inquiry and supported the statements recorded during the preliminary inquiry and thereby supported the case of the department. In the present case, the Criminal Court has referred to the prosecution witnesses and found elements of doubt sufficient to acquit the accused. However, these witnesses had appeared independently before the departmental inquiry and supported the statements recorded during the preliminary inquiry and thereby supported the case of the department. The Inquiry Officer had assessed the evidence on record and concluded the charges against the petitioner were proved. The disciplinary authority gave his independent reasons and findings and eventually confirmed the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Merely because the Sessions Court in appeal found that the charge against the petitioner was not proved, would not be sufficient to reverse the findings and conclusions of the disciplinary authority. I also find that in the criminal case the thrust of the charge against the petitioner was for accepting illegal gratification on a promise for securing a Government job. The element of forging an order of appointment to one of the promises does not appear to be part of the criminal case. Significantly, in his defence the petitioner did not deny having accepted money from various persons suggested by the department. His defence, however, was that this was not on a promise for securing a Government job but by way of borrowing since he needed a sizable amount for purchase of an immovable property. Be that as it may, I do not find any merits in the petition. The disciplinary authority, the appellate and the revisional authority have examined the relevant aspects of the matter and come to factual conclusions which call for no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 10. In the result, petition fails and is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.