Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 49 (TRI)

Babul Chakraborty v. State of Tripura

2020-03-12

AKIL KURESHI

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner has challenged an order dated 23rd February, 2015 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Gomati District, Udaipur imposing punishment of reduction to a lower stage of pay for a period of two years w.e.f. 31st January, 2015, further providing that during such period he will not earn increments and after expiry of such period the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments. [2] Brief facts are as under : The petitioner at the relevant time was working as a Constable in the Tripura Police. He was visited with the chargesheet dated 12th June, 2014 which contained two charges which were as under : ' Article of Charge No. I C/3260 Babul Chakraborty (Ex. Constable No.C/2812) of Armed Branch, South District (now Gomati District), is charged for gross misconduct, in that while he was posted at Dhajanagar Police Lines and staying at his house and sometimes at rented house with his wife and children where delinquent used to ill treat and physically to torture his wife Smti. Ratna @ Sipra Chakraborty consistently following development of illicit relation between C/3260 Babul Chakraborty (Ex. Constable No.C/1812) and one local girl namely Mithu Biswas. Thus the act of C/3260 Babul Chakraborty (Ex. Constable No. C/2812) is highly un-becoming being a member of disciplined force like police. Article of Charge No. II C/3260 Babul Chakraborty (Ex. Constable No. C/2812) of Armed Branch, South District (now Gomati District), is charged for gross misconduct and moral turpitude in that while he was posted at Dhajanagar Police Lines and staying at his home and sometimes at rented house with his wife and children developed ill;icit relation with one Miss Mithu Biswas D/o. Sri Santosh Biswas of Dhajanagar PS R.K. Pur and he was wanted to marry Mithu Biswas despite the facts that he was already married. This led to strained relationship between C/3260 Babul Chakraborty (Ex. Constable No. C/2812) and his wife Smti. Ratna @ Sipra Chakraborty. Thus the act of C/3260 Babul Chakraborty (Ex. Constable No. C/2812) is highly un-becoming being a member of disciplined force like police.' [3] The petitioner denied the charges upon which a departmental inquiry was conducted. Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 26th December, 2014. Constable No. C/2812) and his wife Smti. Ratna @ Sipra Chakraborty. Thus the act of C/3260 Babul Chakraborty (Ex. Constable No. C/2812) is highly un-becoming being a member of disciplined force like police.' [3] The petitioner denied the charges upon which a departmental inquiry was conducted. Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 26th December, 2014. The disciplinary authority after considering such report passed a provisional order of punishment by which the petitioner s pay would be reduced to a lower stage for a period of three years with future effect. Such provisional order dated 31st January, 2015 was served on the petitioner. He was given time to make the representation either in writing or personally, failing which such order would become final. [4] The petitioner made a representation dated 9th February, 2015 and raised several grounds to oppose the proposed punishment. He pointed out that a criminal case for allegedly murdering his wife was instituted against him but in which he was eventually acquitted by the Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench. He denied being guilty of both the charges levelled against him. He referred to the evidence of different witnesses recorded by the Inquiry Officer and suggested why their say should not be believed. He relied on several decisions in support of his contentions. In the end, he requested for personal hearing also and further requested that he may be exonerated of all charges and the departmental inquiry against him be dropped. The disciplinary authority thereupon passed the impugned order in which he referred to the provisional order dated 31st January, 2015, took note of the representation of the petitioner and imposed the punishment of reduction in the lower stage of pay for two years with cumulative effect. Against this order the petitioner preferred Appeal which was dismissed. [5] Appearing for the petitioner learned counsel Ms. R. Purkayastha contended that impugned order has been passed in breach of the principles of natural justice and Rule 15 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, inasmuch as the disciplinary authority did not provide an opportunity of making a representation against the report of the Inquiry Officer. She relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Union of India and others v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan reported in AIR 1991 SC 471 . Counsel further submitted that the charges against the petitioner were not established. The disciplinary authority has passed an extremely harsh order. She relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Union of India and others v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan reported in AIR 1991 SC 471 . Counsel further submitted that the charges against the petitioner were not established. The disciplinary authority has passed an extremely harsh order. [6] On the other hand, Mr. Mangal Debbarma, learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the petition contending that the departmental inquiry was conducted in consonance with the statutory Rules. Full opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself. Proved charges were extremely serious. Punishment was not harsh. [7] In the provisional order dated 31st January, 2015 the disciplinary authority had proposed a particular punishment and given opportunity to the petitioner to make his representation either in writing or orally. In such order there was no indication of providing a copy of the Inquiry Officer s report. In this context in an additional affidavit dated 18th February, 2020, the petitioner had made following averments : 'That, the petitioner most humbly submits that Rule 15 of the CCS(CCA) Rules specifically lays down the procedure to be followed after submission of enquiry report. Firstly, after the enquiry report is submitted, a copy of the same shall be sent to the delinquent officer providing him an opportunity to submit representation against the enquiry report. And then after considering the representation submitted by the delinquent officer, the disciplinary authority shall before passing the final order, a provisional order has to be passed stating the proposed punishment against which the delinquent officer shall be given an opportunity to submit a representation. After considering his representation only, the Disciplinary authority shall pass the provisional order of punishment, thereby giving opportunity of representation to the petitioner and thereafter again considering the representation, final order has to be passed. In the instant case in hand, the petitioner has not been supplied with the copy of the enquiry report thereby giving an opportunity to the petitioner to submit representation against the findings of the enquiry officer which is a clear violation of the mandate of law and thereby caused prejudice to the petitioner due to violation of the principle of natural justice and rule of law. Subsequently, at a later stage the petitioner had obtained the copy of the enquiry report. Subsequently, at a later stage the petitioner had obtained the copy of the enquiry report. Copy of the provisional order of punishment is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-G .' [8] Based on this contention, on 20th February, 2020 following order was passed : 'Case of the petitioner is that after completion of the record inquiry the Disciplinary Authority served the petitioner with a notice for imposition of penalty. However, along with the said notice or even till passing a final order of punishment, copy of the Inquiry Officer s report was not supplied to the petitioner. Obviously, opportunity to make a representation against such report was also denied. Respondents shall produce the original files containing departmental inquiry which would show whether the Inquiry officer s report was supplied before taking a final decision of imposition of penalty. List on 12.03.2020.' [9] Pursuant to the said order, learned Additional Government Advocate had produced the original file of the departmental inquiry which did confirm that along with the provisional order dated 31st January, 2015 copy of the Inquiry Officer s was not supplied to the petitioner. However, on 1st February, 2015 the petitioner wrote to the Superintendent of Police and pointed out that the copy of the findings of the Inquiry Officer s is not provided to him. He requested that a copy of the said report dated 26th December, 2014 may be supplied to him and thereafter be given 10 days for making his representation. The petitioner was thereupon supplied the copy of the Inquiry Officer s report as can be seen from his acknowledgement dated 3rd February, 2015 made on this letter itself. It was thereafter that he made a detailed and elaborate representation dated 9th February, 2015, not only opposing the provisional order on quantum of punishment but resisting the punishment on all grounds including the ground that on the basis of evidence on record charges levelled against the petitioner cannot be stated to have been proved. A copy of the said letter dated 01.02.2015 along with the petitioner s acknowledgement dated 03.02.2015 of receipt of the report of the Inquiry Officer is taken on record. [10] Thus, the petitioner had a full opportunity to make the representation against the findings of the Inquiry Officer holding the charges to be proved. He was provided the copy of the Inquiry Officer s report and allowed to make his representation. [10] Thus, the petitioner had a full opportunity to make the representation against the findings of the Inquiry Officer holding the charges to be proved. He was provided the copy of the Inquiry Officer s report and allowed to make his representation. It may be that along with the provisional order dated 31st January, 2015 the report of the Inquiry Officer was not supplied. This was quickly corrected by the department when the petitioner demanded a copy of such report. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the disciplinary authority had already held that the charges were proved and thereupon proposed the punishment in its provisional order dated 31st January, 2015. Thus, the petitioner did not have any meaningful opportunity to point out to the disciplinary authority why the Inquiry Officer has erred in concluding that the charges against the petitioner were proved. [11] I have perused the provisional order dated 31st January, 2015. It nowhere suggests that the disciplinary authority had made up its mind about the guilt of the delinquent. It merely referred to the report of the Inquiry Officer and the punishment that the disciplinary authority provisionally proposed. Once the delinquent was provided the copy of the Inquiry Officer s report and allowed to make his representation which opportunity he availed, the requirements of natural justice, those flowing from Rule 15 of the CCS(CCA) Rules as elaborated by the Supreme Court in case of Mohd. Ramzan Khan ( supra ) stood satisfied. [12] Once we come to this conclusion, remaining contentions of the counsel for the petitioner can be summarily disposed of. The findings of facts contained in the inquiry report as confirmed by the disciplinary authority are not shown to be perverse. In fact, the department examined several witnesses in support of both the charges. It is settled through series of judgments that interference by the Court with the findings arrived during properly constituted domestic inquiry would be permissible only on the ground of perversity. Equally, the quantum of punishment calls for no interference. The Court would interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority only if on the basis of proved misconduct, the punishment is so excessive as to shock the conscience of the Court, which in the present case does not. [13] In the result, petition is dismissed. [14] Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.