Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 45 (TRI)

Tentu Chowdhury v. State of Tripura

2022-02-01

S.TALAPATRA

body2022
JUDGMENT S. Talapatra, J. - Heard Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. who has appeared for the respondents on advance notice. 2. The grievance of the petitioner falls within a short compass. The petitioner while holding the post of Tehsildar at Matai Tehsil Kachari, he has been alleged of committing some mis-conducts by manipulating the entries under Khatian No.2/25 and Khatian No.1320 of Mouja West Jalefa under Harina Tehsil Kachari. He had put his signature on the correction that he made with a date which was not contemporary but old date i.e. 18.03.2020 on the document. 3. Having located the mis-conduct a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on the charges that he had manipulated those records on gratification and also there have been a charge of having resources in consistent with his known income. However, so far the charges are concerned the memorandum dated 20.11.2020 is the basic record [Annexure-3 to the writ petition]. 4. By refuting all the charges, the petitioner filed the written statement [Annexure-4 to the writ petition]. As the petitioner denied the charges, a formal inquiry was instituted. The Additional Commissioner of Departmental Inquiries started inquiring into the allegations, but she was released from that post keeping the departmental proceeding incomplete. 5. The petitioner had represented but there had been no action. However, this court finds that the petitioner was apprehensive of missing out the opportunity of promotion as it is evident from the communication dated 07.01.2022 [Annexure-7 to the writ petition] made by the District Magistrate and Collector, South Tripura, Belonia to the Commissioner of Departmental Inquiries, Government of Tripura, Agartala. In this background-facts, the petitioner has urged this court for directing the respondents to revoke the impugned memorandum 20.11.2020 [Annexure-3] on the ground of delay or in the alternative, for directing the respondents to dispose of the disciplinary proceeding as initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the said memorandum dated 20.11.2020. 6. Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents has submitted that this court may put a time frame for completion of the departmental proceeding, to which Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned counsel has not projected any opposition. 7. 6. Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents has submitted that this court may put a time frame for completion of the departmental proceeding, to which Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned counsel has not projected any opposition. 7. Hence, this writ petition stands disposed of with the following directions: The respondents shall take all possible steps to complete the departmental proceeding within four months from the date when the petitioner shall furnish a copy of this order. The petitioner is also directed to cooperate in the proceeding. If it is found that the petitioner is defaulting without sufficient reason, the period that would be wasted for the petitioner's non-cooperation, will be added to the time frame as laid by this court. There shall be no order as to costs. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. for onward transmission.