JUDGMENT : The petitioner has made several prayers. However, by an order dated 05.02.2020 as clarified under order dated 25.03.2021 passed in I.A. 01 of 2021, this petition is confined to the challenge to the charge sheet (Annexure-12). 2. This challenge arises in following background : The petitioner joined the Tripura State Council for Science & Technology as a Research Officer in the year 1987. He retired on superannuation with effect from 31.10.2019 from the post of Principal Scientific Officer (Space Application). Before his retirement, the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 04.09.2019 on the ground of contemplated departmental inquiry. Under a Memorandum dated 22.10.2019, the petitioner was served a charge sheet which contained one charge namely, that the petitioner while working as a Principal Scientific Officer had sworn a counter affidavit on behalf of TSCST in W.P. (C) No.503 of 2018 filed by Deepayan Ghosh and another before the Tripura High Court in which facts were misrepresented and wrong submissions were made in paragraph-8 of the affidavit with ulterior motive to ensure undue gain to the petitioners. He, thus, acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant and also failed to maintain absolute integrity. The statement of imputation of misconduct annexed to the charge sheet further elaborated the allegations against the petitioner in respect of this charge and reads as under: “STATEMENT OF IMPUTATION OF MISCONDUCT OR MISBEHAVIOR IN SUPPORT OF THE CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST SHRI NATARAJ DATTA, PRINCIPAL SCIENTIFIC OFFICER, TRIPURA SPACE APPLICATIONS CENTRE (TSAC) UNDER TRIPURA STATE COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY Article-I Shri Nataraj Datta while working as Principal Scientific Officer, Tripura Space Applications Centre under Tripura State Council for Science & Technology swore a Counter Affidavit as Joint Member Secretary (I/C) of Tripura State Council for Science & Technology (TSCST) on behalf of Respondent No-3 (TSCST) in W.P. (C) 503 of 2018 filed by Shri Deepayan Ghosh & Another before the Hon’ble High Court of Tripura, wherein he has misrepresented the facts and made wrong submissions in Para-8 of the said Counter Affidavit. Para-8 of the Counter Affidavit reads as follows: “That in regards to the statements made in Para 13, 14, & 15, 16, 17 & 18 of the writ petition it is stated that the Respondent No-3 begs to state that due to mistake on their part in the advertisements dated 21/11/2014 and 08/09/2015 respectively, it has been wrongly mentioned that the appointments would be on Contract basis for 3 (three) years. Similarly, in the offer of appointments it has also been recorded that the appointment would be on Contractual basis keeping in abeyance the regular scale pay for the said posts. The answering Respondent states that both the appointment of the petitioners were made against sanctioned regular posts and through a recognized process of appointment recognized by law. However, once the said mistakes had been noticed by the answering Respondent, proper communication has been made to the State Government but till date no clarification or comment has been received from the state of Tripura that’s why their appointments could not be regularized”. 2. A perusal of the submissions made by Shri Nataraj Datta on behalf of Respondent No.-3 (TSCST) in Para 8 of the Counter Affidavit reveals that Shri Datta misrepresented the facts and made wrong submissions with ulterior motive of causing undue gain to the Petitioners of the said Writ Petition. The misrepresentation of facts/wrong submissions is brought out as follows: (i) A note [Sl. No.2 of the list of documents] was initiated by Shri Nataraj Datta, In-charge, Tripura Space Applications Centre (TSAC) [Principal Scientific Officer, TSCST] on 13.01.2016 in file No 4(82)/TSC(S&T)/TSAC/Pt-I of TSCST with the proposal to enhance monthly remuneration or to consider regular pay scale for the petitioners. The note was examined by the Joint Member Secretary and Member Secretary of TSCST. However, finally the Vice-Chairman (Minister in-charge of Department of Science, Technology & Environment) decided to only enhance the consolidated monthly remuneration to Rs25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand). The proposal for consideration of regular pay scale in the Pay Band-4, Rs 15,000/-to Rs 39,000/-with Grade pay of Rs 5,400/-for the Petitioners was not approved. (ii) In another note (Sl. However, finally the Vice-Chairman (Minister in-charge of Department of Science, Technology & Environment) decided to only enhance the consolidated monthly remuneration to Rs25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand). The proposal for consideration of regular pay scale in the Pay Band-4, Rs 15,000/-to Rs 39,000/-with Grade pay of Rs 5,400/-for the Petitioners was not approved. (ii) In another note (Sl. No.-3 of the list of documents) initiated by Shri Nataraj Datta, Principal Scientific Officer (Space Application) & Head, TSAC for consideration of the representations of the Petitioners as regular employees of TSCST, the Member Secretary of TSCST did not agree with the proposal and advised to process in Departmental file with considered views. Director, Department of Science, Technology and Environment (ex-officio Joint Member Secretary, TSCST) examined the matter [Sl. No.-4 of list of documents] and observed that – “It seems that their offer of appointments are of “regular basis” as the term “contract basis” written in their offer of appointments is not par with all other terms and conditions given to them by TSC(S&T) and is the term “contract basis” is written wrongly by TSCST”. However, these observations of the Director, Department of Science, Technology and Environment were not agreed to by the competent authority of TSCST. 3. In view of above, it is clearly evident that Shri Datta, in Para 8 of the Counter Affidavit sworn by him, misrepresented the facts and wrongly admitted to the contentions of the Petitioners in Para 13, 14, & 15, 16, 17 & 18 of the Writ Petition with ulterior motives of causing undue gain to the Petitioners. 4. The above act of misrepresentation of facts and making wrong submissions by the said Shri Datta before the Hon’ble High Court of Tripura resulted in adverse decision for the TSCST and the State Government. The said Shri Datta, therefore, did not only act in a manner unbecoming of a Government Servant but he also failed to maintain absolute integrity in discharge of his official duties in violation of Rule-3 of Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988.” 3. This charge sheet the petitioner has challenged in the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner is being victimized by the department. After more than 30 years of blemish less service, at the fag end of the retirement, the charge sheet was issued on the basis of unsustainable allegations. This charge sheet the petitioner has challenged in the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner is being victimized by the department. After more than 30 years of blemish less service, at the fag end of the retirement, the charge sheet was issued on the basis of unsustainable allegations. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the averments made in paragraph-8 of the affidavit-in-reply were based entirely on the office note prepared by the Joint Member Secretary of Tripura State Council for Science & Technology. It was on the basis of this note that the petitioner had drafted the para-wise comments. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be held responsible for any of these statements or deliberate attempt to cause wrongful gain to the petitioners in the said petition. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the petition contending that the departmental inquiry is not yet completed. There was prima facie material on the basis of which charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner. The departmental proceedings must be allowed to be completed. The Court, at this interim stage, would not interfere. 5. From the record, it appears that one Deepayan Ghosh and another had filed W.P. (C) No.503 of 2018 before the Tripura High Court for regularization in service and for grant of regular pay scales. According to these petitioners, they were appointed against regular posts carrying regular scale of pay. Their appointment was contractual by conversion of the existing regular posts. In this petition, an affidavit-in-reply was filed on behalf of Tripura State Council for Science & Technology on the basis of draft prepared by the petitioner. In paragraph-8 of the said affidavit following averments were made: “That in regard to the statements made in paras 13, 14 & 15, 16, 17 & 18 of the writ petition it is stated that the Respondent No.3 begs to state that due to mistake on their part in the advertisements dated 21.11.2014 and 08.09.2015 respectively, it has been wrongly mentioned that the appointments would be on contract basis for 3 years. Similarly, in the offer of appointments it has also been recorded that the appointment would be on contractual basis keeping in abeyance the regular scale of pay for the said posts. Similarly, in the offer of appointments it has also been recorded that the appointment would be on contractual basis keeping in abeyance the regular scale of pay for the said posts. The answering Respondent states that both the appointment of the petitioners were made against sanctioned regular posts and through a recognized process of appointment recognized by law. However, once the said mistake had been noticed by the answering respondent, proper communication has been made to the State Government but till date no clarification or comment has been received from the State of Tripura that’s why their appointment could not be regularized.” 6. Mainly relying on the said averments, the learned Single Judge disposed of the petition by a judgment dated 27.02.2019 directing the department to treat the petitioners as regularly appointed on the post in question from the date of initial appointment and to release the pay in the regular scales. The Division Bench dismissed the Writ Appeal No.54 of 2019 filed by the department by a judgment dated 27.08.2019. 7. According to the department, the averments made in para-8 noted above were factually incorrect and this resulted into a wrong decision being rendered against the department. 8. It is well settled through series of judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts that the interference by the High Court at an interim stage of departmental proceedings would be rare and exceptional. Whether the averments made in paragraph-8 of the affidavit-in-reply, were contrary to the record and deliberately favouring the petitioners as contended by the department or were made on the basis of some authenticate source such as notes of the superior officer as averred by the petitioner is purely factual aspect. Even before the completion of the inquiry, it would be ill-advised for me to venture into this pure question on fact. The petitioner must face departmental inquiry during which he would have the opportunity to defend himself of the charge levelled against him. However on the grounds urged by the petitioner through his advocate, the inquiry cannot be snuffed out even before it is completed. One thing however cannot be disputed that the charge against the petitioner is simple. His defence is also simple. The petitioner has retired on superannuation. Pending departmental inquiry would result into withholding of his post-retiral benefits. The departmental inquiry, therefore, must be completed as soon as possible. 9. One thing however cannot be disputed that the charge against the petitioner is simple. His defence is also simple. The petitioner has retired on superannuation. Pending departmental inquiry would result into withholding of his post-retiral benefits. The departmental inquiry, therefore, must be completed as soon as possible. 9. In the result, the petition is disposed of rejecting the request of the petitioner for quashing the charge sheet (Annexure-12). However, the respondents are directed to complete the departmental inquiry in relation to the said charge sheet by passing a final order within 6 (six) months from today. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.