Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 401 (TRI)

Bikash Bhowmik v. State of Tripura

2022-11-22

ARINDAM LODH

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Baran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. De, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the State-respondents. 2. The petitioner, by way of filing the instant petition, has prayed for the following reliefs:- 'In the premises whereof, it is most humbly and respectfully submitted that Your Lordships would be graciously pleased to: (i) Issue Rule, calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Certiorari and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued, for transmitting the records, lying them, for rendering substantive and conscionable justice to the petitioner, and for quashing/setting aside the impugned Memorandum dated 22.06.2022, the impugned Order dated 09.09.2022 & the impugned Order dated 15.10.2022 (Annexures-6, 8 & 10 respectively supra); (ii) Issue Rule, calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued, mandating/directing them, to forthwith revoke/rescind the impugned Memorandum dated 22.06.2022, the impugned Order dated 09.09.2022 & the impugned Order dated 15.10.2022 (Annexures-6, 8 & 10 respectively supra), and further, for mandating/directing them, to reinstate the petitioner in service, with effect from the date of his dismissal from service, i.e.15.10.2022, along with all other consequential benefits; (iii) Issue Rule, calling upon the respondents and each one them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Prohibition and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued, restraining/prohibiting them, from acting in any manner, in furtherance of the impugned Memorandum dated 22.06.2022, the impugned Order dated 09.09.2022 & the impugned Order dated 15.10.2022 (Annexures-6, 8 & 10 respectively supra); (iv) In the Ad-interim, and thereafter, on hearing the parties, in the Interim, an Order, in terms of Relief (iii) supra; (v) Call for the records, appertaining to this writ petition; (vi) After hearing the parties, be pleased to make the Rule absolute in terms of (i) to (ii) above; (vii) Costs of and incidental to this proceeding: (viii) Any other Relief(s) as to this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper;' 3. Briefly stated, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. Articles of charge were framed. A full-fledged inquiry was conducted. Petitioner has no grievance against the proceeding of the inquiry. Briefly stated, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. Articles of charge were framed. A full-fledged inquiry was conducted. Petitioner has no grievance against the proceeding of the inquiry. Ultimately, the Inquiring Authority after consideration of the articles of charge and the evidence on record held that the petitioner was guilty of any of the charges under the articles of charge framed by the concerned authority. The matter was reported to the Disciplinary Authority who disagreed with the findings of the Inquiring Authority. 4. Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has drawn my attention to a Memorandum dated 29.04.2022, issued by the Disciplinary Authority, wherein, it transpires that the Inquiring Authority while arriving at the finding did not assign substantial reasons and also did not discuss the articles of charge. The petitioner submitted representation on 05.07.2022 [Annexure-7 to the writ petition]. In response to the said representation, the Disciplinary Authority had issued an order on 09.09.2022 stating that the representation of the accused-officer i.e. the petitioner herein, was carefully examined and found that there was no merit in the representation and accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority provisionally dismissed the petitioner from service as penalty vide order dated 15.10.2022. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner referring to Rule 15(2) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, submits that the said Rule requires material discussions on the articles of charge as well as the evidence on record to arrive at a finding whether the petitioner is guilty of articles of charge framed against him. 6. Ex facie, the Memorandum dated 29.04.2022 reflects that the Inquiring Authority did not discuss the articles of charge qua the evidence on record and he came to a finding in a mechanical manner. 7. The relevant portion of Rule 15(2) of CCS(CCA) Rules, may be reproduced here-in-below: 15. 6. Ex facie, the Memorandum dated 29.04.2022 reflects that the Inquiring Authority did not discuss the articles of charge qua the evidence on record and he came to a finding in a mechanical manner. 7. The relevant portion of Rule 15(2) of CCS(CCA) Rules, may be reproduced here-in-below: 15. Action on inquiry report (1) **** **** **** (2) The Disciplinary Authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the report of the inquiry, if any, held by the Disciplinary Authority or where the Disciplinary Authority is not the Inquiring Authority, a copy of the report of the Inquiring Authority together with its own tentative reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of Inquiring Authority on any article of charge to the Government servant who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission to the Disciplinary Authority within fifteen days, irrespective of whether the report is favourable or not to the Government servant.' 8. Having regard to sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 of CCS(CCA) Rules, I direct the respondents authority to consider the representation of the petitioner afresh. While doing so, the respondent-Disciplinary Authority may refer the articles of charge and the relevant evidence on record and thereafter may dispose of the representation in accordance with law. Since the petitioner already suffered an order of dismissal, the respondent-Disciplinary Authority is directed to comply the aforesaid order and communicate it to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today. 9. In view of the above, the order of penalty of dismissal vide order dated 15.10.2022, issued by the Principal Secretary, Government of Tripura (Disciplinary Authority) stands set aside and quashed. The Disciplinary Authority shall pass fresh order. 10. With the above observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed.