Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 11 (TRI)

State of Tripura v. Bimal Chakraborty

2022-01-07

INDRAJIT MAHANTY

body2022
JUDGMENT Indrajit Mahanty; CJ. - The present I.A. No.01 of 2021 has been filed arising out of WP(C) No.304 of 2021 inter alia seeking a direction for extending the time by at least two months to comply with the directions of this Court dated 30.04.2021 passed in WP(C) No.304 of 2021. Vide judgment dated 30.04.2021 this Court in paragraph-4 of the said judgment directed as follows: '4. Under the circumstances, it is directed that the respondents shall complete the departmental inquiry against the petitioner within six months from today, i.e. latest by 31.10.2021. In view of these directions, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the prayer for quashing of the suspension order.' 2. Learned counsel for the State has narrated the events which have occurred in the present inquiry proceedings in paragraph-5 of the present application which is quoted hereunder: '5. That, in the meanwhile, the Inquiring Authority was also placed on compulsory waiting for posting vide notification dated 27th July, 2021. By Order dated 4th September, 2021 Shri Apurba Roy, IAS, Secretary, Planning department was appointed as Inquiry Authority to inquire into the charge framed against Sri Chakraborty. By order dated 9th September, 2021 Shri Nantu Ranjan Das, TCS was appointed as presenting officer to present the case before the Inquiry Authority. Notice was issued on 10-09-2021 to Sri Chakraborty to appear before the Inquiry Authority on 15-09-2021. The Inquiry Authority submitted his findings vide letter dated 7th October, 2021. As per Rule 15 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 copy of findings of the Inquiry Authority dated 7th October, 2021 supplied to the petitioner for furnishing his written representation if any against the findings of the Inquiry Authority within 15 (Fifteen) days of receipt of memorandum dated 7-10-2021. Writ petitioner submitted his representation vide letter dated 22-10-2021 against the findings of the Inquiry Authority. The written representation of the writ petitioner was processed and placed before the authority for decision.' 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the entire proceeding has more or less come to a conclusion within the time as directed by this Court and the Inquiry Authority on 07.10.2021 supplied to the petitioner a copy of the inquiry report requiring him to furnish his written representation, if any, against the findings of the Inquiry Authority within 15 days. The original writ petitioner namely Sri Bimal Chakraborty also submitted his representation within the time as stipulated, i.e. on 22.10.2021. In spite of having made his representation within the time stipulated by this Court, the disciplinary proceeding was not concluded within the time as directed. 4. Learned senior counsel Mr. Somik Deb appearing for the original writ petitioner contends that the directions issued by this Court in its order dated 30.04.2021 and in paragraph-4 thereof as quoted hereinabove clearly establishes the fact that the directions of this Court were mandatory in nature and time was of essence. He further submits that even if a situation arose where extension of time may have been sought for, the present applicants did not seek extension of time prior to the period that was fixed by the Court, i.e. 31.10.2021 lapsing. 5. In response to the aforesaid submissions on behalf of the private respondent-original writ petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the State contended that the delay caused in concluding the proceedings was not attributable to any purposeful delay on the part of the State but it appeared that it was only on 04.09.2021 that an officer was placed as Secretary in the Planning department as Inquiry Authority and the Inquiry Officer concluded the inquiry, submitted a report of the findings to the delinquent and sought for his representation. Unfortunately, period available thereafter, i.e. after 22.10.2021 was extremely limited for taking a decision thereon by the appointing authority and seeking approvals that are necessary under the statute. He submits that the entire proceedings had, in fact, been concluded except to the extent of consultation with the Tripura Public Service Commission. It is stated by the learned counsel for the State that even the recommendations were sent to the Tripura Public Service Commission on 29.10.2021. Awaiting the result of consultation with the Tripura Public Service Commission, the applicants sought for extension of time by filing the instant I.A. on 09.11.2021. It is further submitted that, in fact, the Tripura Public Service Commission responded to the consultation sought for and the same was received by the applicant on 15.11.2021. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced by the parties, I have also perused the judgment of this Court passed in WP(C) No.304 of 2021 dated 30.04.2021. 7. It is further submitted that, in fact, the Tripura Public Service Commission responded to the consultation sought for and the same was received by the applicant on 15.11.2021. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced by the parties, I have also perused the judgment of this Court passed in WP(C) No.304 of 2021 dated 30.04.2021. 7. At this point, it would be also appropriate to take note of the fact that the applicants had come before this Court in the present application numbered as I.A.-01 of 2021 and the matter was listed on 18.11.2021. On such occasion, this Court directed the Principal Secretary in the General Administration (AR) Department to file an affidavit in support of the prayer made by the applicant-State. Pursuant to such directions, such an affidavit has come to be filed on behalf of the State. 8. Considering the circumstances of this case and after perusing the judgment rendered by this Court dated 30.04.2021, there can be no doubt that while this Court had fixed a period of six months from the date of its judgment, i.e. latest by 31.10.2021, yet I am of the considered view that ends of justice would require a finding by this Court that there was complete inaction on the part of the State. Unfortunately, this Court cannot come to a conclusion that there has been complete inaction inasmuch as there appeared to be no such officer to conduct the inquiry and the inquiry only commenced on 04.09.2021 by the appointment of the Inquiry Officer. No doubt, as stated by the learned counsel for the private respondent-original writ petitioner there is no explanation as to due to the inaction taken between the period of the date of the order, i.e. 30.04.2021 and 04.09.2021 yet the averment made is that there was no such officer in the post and the Inquiry Authority who had to inquire into the matter had to be appointed. Though there has been delay in appointing such an Inquiry Officer, the same in keeping in view the nature of the allegations made against the delinquent, it appears that the said Inquiry Officer acted with due haste after his appointment and statutorily effectively concluded his part of the proceedings by seeking consultation with the Tripura Public Service Commission within the time as prescribed. There appeared to be some delay on the part of the Tripura Public Service Commission in responding to the communication addressed to it. Therefore, this Court is of its considered view that no cause can be found against the State for such purpose. 9. The order passed by this Court dated 30.04.2021 also taking into fact that there was substantial delay in concluding the inquiry had also directed enhancement of the subsistence allowance of the petitioner and it is admitted that the subsistence allowance was suitably raised in terms of the directions issued. This Court is of the considered view that circumstances beyond the control of the State necessitated filing of the present application seeking extension of time. Therefore, this Court for ends of justice directs extension of the period as stipulated in the order dated 30.04.2021 up to the end of January, 2022. However, it is made clear that the State must comply with the directions issued by this Court within the period as extended hereinabove. 10. Accordingly, I.A. is allowed in view of above terms.