Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 315 (TRI)

Sudhangshu Sarkar v. State of Tripura

2022-07-29

ARINDAM LODH, S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-appellant. Also heard Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned GA assisted by Mr. S. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 2. Briefly stated, a disciplinary proceeding vide memo dated 23.10.2013 had been initiated against the petitioner by the respondent No. 3 on five charges. The petitioner had submitted his defence statement on 28.02.2014, specifically denying the charges. On completion of inquiry, authority found that the petitioner was not guilty on all the five charges vide his finding dated 21.01.2015 but the Disciplinary Authority in respect of first three charges disagreed with findings of the Inquiry Authority and asked the petitioner-appellate to submit representation. The petitioner submitted representation on 17.08.2016. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 after considering the materials stated in the representation, had imposed a penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect by order dated 17.03.2017. The said order of the Disciplinary Authority was challenged and the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the respondent No. 2, the Appellate Authority, on 03.04.2017. The Appellate authority did not interfere with the findings and penalty as imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1230 of 2018 before this court. The learned single Judge after hearing the parties while deciding the writ petition held that the Article III could not survive, but, upheld the conclusion of the Disciplinary Authority with respect to charge as framed under Article I vide judgment and order dated 24.06.2020. Learned single Judge further directed the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order on the question of appropriate punishment to be imposed in such charged circumstance. Feeling aggrieved, and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal before this court. 3. However, Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel has submitted that in compliance with the order passed by learned single Judge, the Disciplinary Authority modified the order of penalty and after careful examination of the case of the appellant, a penalty of withholding two increments without cumulative effect was imposed upon the appellant. 4. At the time of hearing of the present appeal, the court asked the appellant to file an additional affidavit incorporating the fact of penalty which was imposed upon the petitioner afresh by order dated 19.01.2021. 5. 4. At the time of hearing of the present appeal, the court asked the appellant to file an additional affidavit incorporating the fact of penalty which was imposed upon the petitioner afresh by order dated 19.01.2021. 5. We find that the petitioner-appellant has sought for approval of the District Magistrate and Collector to spend the money involved to execute the work under MGNREGA scheme. The DM and Collector did not inform the petitioner anything. However, considering the exigencies of the situation, the petitioner-appellant has spent the money. There is no evidence that he has utilized the money for his own gain. Only the allegation is that he could not follow the DFPRT rules for not taking due approval of the DM and Collector. Merely, this can be said that some procedural lapses were there. True it is, that the executing officers must follow the DFPRT rules to keep transparency in utilizing the government funds. DFPRT rules is mandatory in nature. Any breach will definitely leave a space to question transparency in the utilization of Government funds. So, violation of the rule is not expected from the officers concerned. The intention of the legislatures to enact DFPRT rules should not be flouted in any manner whatsoever. Keeping in view this aspect, in the instant case, the petitioner has committed breach of rules. He should have pursued the matter with the concerned DM and Collector before execution of works whatever exigencies were there. For this reason, we find no error in the decision of the Disciplinary Authority confirmed by the Appellate Authority. 6. However, considering all aspects of the matter and the nature of irregularities committed by the petitioner-appellant, we deem it pertinent to reduce the penalty of withholding two increments without cumulative effect as imposed by the disciplinary authority as the said penalty appears to be disproportionate. Accordingly, the said penalty is reduced to the extent of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect. As a corollary, the respondents shall release/refund one increment to the petitioner-appellant within a period of 3(three) months from today. Needless to say, that, the service of the petitioner will be regulated accordingly. 7. With the aforesaid order, the instant writ appeal stands partly allowed.