The Tripura High Court recently taking note of the fact that an inquiry in the matter has been concluded and related reports have already been submitted before the Court, gave liberty to the state government to give suitable posting to IAS Dr. Sailesh Kumar Yadav, who had raided two wedding halls in Agartala as a District Magistrate in April 2021 for violating the night curfew and other Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) enforced to curb the Covid-19 spread.
Facts of the case
The matter dates back to April 2021 when as many as 31 people, including 19 women, were detained from a marriage party in Tripura by West Tripura DM Shailesh Kumar Yadav for violating the night curfew and other Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) enforced to curb the Covid-19 spread.
In an PIL filed before the Court in relation to the said matter the Court as an interim measure directed that an impartial fact finding inquiry regarding the incident and the role played by the D.M. which is absolutely imperative; it would be essential that he is shifted out of Agartala.
The court by a subsequent order took cognizance of the submission advanced by the learned Advocate General that the District
Magistrate in question had been divested of all charges and had proceeded on leave for 12 days. In response to such submission this Court by the said order took note of the fact that the State had constituted a two member inquiry committee.
The said committee constituted by the State was expanded to include Mr. Subhash Sikdar, a retired District and Sessions Judge, as an additional member in the said committee.
After the committee submitted its report, the Court then directed the committee to carry out further inquiry to ascertain under whose order the members of the marriage party including the women and children were detained at the police station.
The Court then appointed a one-man committee chaired by Sri Bamdeb Majumder, retired District and Sessions Judge, to carry out further inquiry into the matter and submit a report in sealed cover and time was extended for submitting the report thereafter.
It is also pertinent to point out herein that by a subsequent order, this Court granted learned counsels for all parties to inspect the said reports on terms and conditions contained in the said order. After perusing the said reports, the parties were at liberty to take notes of the said reports to advance their arguments on merits. Therefore at this stage, the present interim application has come to be filed.
Contention of the Parties
It was submitted by the learned Advocate General that since the requirement of the D.M. to be transferred was the pendency of the inquiry and the inquiry in the meantime has been concluded and reports have been submitted before this Court and further since it is asserted that the State has shortfall of officers for necessary postings, prayer has been made to permit the State to transfer and post the said officer in any appropriate place.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the reports essentially have gone against the officer concerned and, therefore, this Court should take cognizance of the said report at the present stage and not give liberty to the State to appoint the officer, as prayed for.
Courts Observation and Judgment
The bench disposing off the matter remarked, "However, since the inquiry report has been submitted before this Court, the acceptance of the said report and what action can be taken pursuant to this Court’s direction will be the subject matter of adjudication in final hearing of this case. In view of the fact that the inquiry has been concluded and reports by the original three member committee and one-man committee have already been submitted before this Court and the apprehension of any interference in course of the inquiry no longer subsists, we grant the prayer made by the State and we allow the interim application granting liberty for the posting of the D.M. in any appropriate place."
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
