Sri Sanjoy Sarkar vs The State Of Tripura
2021 Latest Caselaw 449 Tri

                              Page - 1 of 8




                    HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                          AGARTALA

                         WP(C) No.1063/2018

Sri Sanjoy Sarkar
S/o - Sri Sushanta Sarkar, Vill - Ugal Cherra,
P.O. Ugal Cherra, P.S. Pacharthal, North Tripura.
                                                    .............. Petitioner(s).
                                   Vs.
1. The State of Tripura,
   to be represented by the Secretary, Department of Home,
   Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Complex,
   P.O.- Kunjanban, P.S.- N.C.C., West Tripura.
2. The Director General of Police,
   Government of Tripura, Fire Bridge Chowmohani,
   Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala, West Tripura.

3. The inspector General of Police, (AP OPS)
   Government of Tripura, Fire Brigade Chowmohani, Agartala,
   P.S. West Agartala, West Tripura.

4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (AP OPS)
   Government of Tripura, Fire Brigade Chowmohani, Agartala,
   P.S. West Agartala, West Tripura.

5. The Commandant, 10th Bn., TSR(IR-V)
   Vill - Paschim Barjala, P.O. and P.S.- Jirania, West Tripura.

                                                  .............. Respondent(s).
                                   Page - 2 of 8




                              _B_E_ F_O_R_E_
      HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
      For Petitioner(s)                  : Mr. A K Pal, Advocate.
      For Respondent(s)                  : Mr. D Sharma, Addl. Govt. Adv.
      Date of hearing & judgment         : 1st April, 2021.
      Whether fit for reporting          : No.


                       J U D G M E N T ( O R A L)

Petitioner has challenged an order of dismissal passed by the

disciplinary authority as upheld by the appellate authority.

[2] Brief facts are as under :

The petitioner was offered appointment as a Riflemen(GD) in

Tripura State Rifles(TSR) under order dated 31st December, 2005.

According to the department, the petitioner had secured such appointment on

the ground that he belonged to Scheduled Caste(SC) community. He,

however, had to produce the SC certificate which he promised to do later.

The department reminded him about non-production of the certificate

despite which he did not supply his certificate of his belonging to SC

community. Thereupon a departmental charge sheet was issued to him on

28th April, 2007 which contained three charges read as under :

Page - 3 of 8

"ARTICLES CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST NO.06020673 RIFLEMEN(GD)SANJOY SARKAR HQ/ADM COY OF 10TH BN TSR(IR-V) IN CONNECTION WITH DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS.

ARTICLE OF CHARGE NO - 1 : No.06020673 Riflemen(GD) Sanjoy Sarkar HQ/ADM Coy of 10th Bn TSR(IR-V) claimed that he is belongs to Scheduled Caste category at the time of interview which was held at Kumarghat on 13.05.2005 before the board under the chairmanship of Sri Uttam Majumder, TPS-I, the then Commandant 7th Bn. TSR (Now Superintendent of Police, North Tripura District) by producing a Panchayat Family Registration Certificate with assurance that he would be able to produce valid SC certificate. But he has failed to produce the valid SC certificate till to date. Thus the act of No.06020673 Rfn(GD) Sanjoy Sarkar amounts to fraudulent means of cheating.

ARTICLE OF CHARGE NO - 2 : No.06020673 Riflemen(GD) Sanjoy Sarkar HQ/ADM Coy of 10th Bn TSR joined in TSR on 20.01.2006 as a Riflemen(GD) against the existing vacancy of SC category vide Commandant 2nd Bn TSR office letter No.F.322/TSR- II/ESTT/RECT(Vac)/332 dated 31st December 2005 and he was asked in several time to produce valid SC certificate to prepare his Service Book. But he did not produce any valid SC certificate so far. Thus the act of No.06020673 Rfn(GD) Sanjoy Sarkar amounts to misconduct.

ARTICLE OF CHARGE NO - 3 : No.06020673 Riflemen(GD) Sanjoy Sarkar HQ/ADM Coy of 10th Bn TSR tried to obtain SC certificate from the concerned authority whereas the said Riflemen(GD) Sanjoy Sarkar and his whole family members are belongs to "Kapali" community with is notified as OBC category. Thus the act of No.06020673 Rfn(GD) Sanjoy Sarkar amounts to misconduct and further amounts to fraudulent means of cheating."

Page - 4 of 8

[3] According to the statement of the imputation of misconduct, the

petitioner had appeared in the recruitment rally held on 13th May, 2005 at

Kumarghat for selection to the post of Riflemen in TSR. His name was

initially entered at Sl. No.23 in unreserved category. After qualifying in

physical test he appeared in the oral test, during which he claimed that he

belonged to SC category and in support of which he had produced a

Panchayat Family Registration Certificate from the concerned Block which

was signed by the Panchayat Secretary. He also assured the Chairman of the

Recruitment Board that he would produce the valid SC certificate before the

competent authority soon if he is selected. His request was considered and

he was offered appointment to the post of Riflemen(GD) on SC vacancy but

the petitioner failed to produce the SC certificate. It is further alleged that the

petitioner had produced some photocopy of the Family Registration

Certificate claiming that his parents belonged to SC category, however, from

the inquiry it was learnt by the department that though the name of the father

of the petitioner was recorded as SC category in family registration of the

Block Development Officer‟s records, no documents in support of such

recording were found.

[4] With these allegations, departmental inquiry was conducted.

Inquiry officer submitted his report dated 22nd March, 2008. He held that the Page - 5 of 8

charges were not proved. The disciplinary authority, however, did not agree

with this finding of the inquiry officer and at one stage, proceeded to pass an

order of punishment. The High Court reversed it and provided that the copy

of the inquiry officer‟s report be supplied to the petitioner and he may be

allowed to make his representation. The disciplinary authority thereupon

issued a provisional order of punishment on 2nd November, 2015 in which he

cited his brief tentative reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the

inquiry officer, supplying a copy of inquiry report and also opportunity to

the petitioner to make his representation against the tentative view of the

disciplinary authority. The petitioner made his representation. However, the

disciplinary authority proceeded to pass the order of dismissal on 20 th

November, 2016 relevant portion of which reads as under :

"AND WHEREAS, I have carefully gone through the DP file, findings of the enquiry officer and the evidence on records, opinion of Law Department and opinion of state level scrutiny committee. Bases on the facts and circumstances of the case I came to the conclusion after applying my mind judiciously that No.06020673 Rfn(GD) Sanjoy arkar of 10th Bn TSR(IR-V) would be dismissed from the service. Hence, Provisional order of "Dismissal from service" was issued to No.06020673 Riflemen(GD) Sanjoy Sarkar 10th Bn TSR(IR-v) at his home address through special messenger and registered post vide this office order No.11742/F.DP-02/2007/TSR- X(IR-V/SS/Estt/2007 dated 02.11.2015 with direction as final opportunity for making representation on the penalty proposed against him and such representation, if any, should be made in writing or he Page - 6 of 8

may appear in person before the competent authority within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order but neither he submitted representation nor appeared before the undersigned till date.

NOW THEREFORE, I Shri Dilip Ray, TPS Gr.I Commandant, 10th Bn TSR(IR-V) being the disciplinary authority, after careful examination of the case considering all the facts, in exercising of powers conferred upon me under rule 12(1)(j) of the TSR Act, 1983 hereby impose major punishment of „Dismissal from Service‟.

The DP No.02/2007 DATED 23-05-2007 drawn up against No.06020673 Rfn(FD) Sanjoy Sarkar is hereby disposed off"

The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged this order before the

appellate authority upon which he filed this petition.

[5] Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the

petitioner had not committed any misconduct. He had applied for the post in

question only as an unreserved category candidate. He had never claimed

that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste. The authorities have wrongly

punished the petitioner. He pointed out that the inquiry officer had held that

the charges were not proved.

[6] On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate relied

on materials on record and submitted that though initially the petitioner had

filled up the form as a General Category candidate, after clearing the

physical test he had produced a Xerox copy of a family report card claiming Page - 7 of 8

that he belonged to Scheduled Caste and ensured that he would produce the

SC certificate in due course. It was on such basis that the interview

committee had selected and offered appointment as an SC candidate. Despite

repeated reminders, the petitioner failed to produce his caste certificate upon

which departmental inquiry was instituted. On the basis of evidence on

record, the disciplinary authority held that the charges were proved and the

enquiry officer had committed an error in coming to the contrary

conclusions. Before arriving at such conclusions the disciplinary authority

had also recorded his tentative reasons and given an opportunity to the

petitioner to make his representation.

[7] From the materials on record and submissions made before me, it

can be seen that the petitioner has not raised any contentions of defect in

conduct of the inquiry. In other words, it is not the case of the petitioner that

the principles of natural justice or the statutory rules applicable were not

followed while conducting the inquiry. Once this is so established, the

question is of correctness of findings arrived at by the disciplinary authority

in the course of the inquiry. The petitioner himself does not even claim to be

an SC candidate. Only question was, did he claim to be so at the time of his

selection and was it on such basis that he was offered appointment on a

reserved post. These questions of facts have been gone into by the Page - 8 of 8

disciplinary authority and the appellate authority and come to the

conclusions against the petitioner.

[8] Through series of judgments of the Supreme Court it is by now

well-settled that the findings of facts arrived at during the course of inquiry

would not be open to interference by the High Court in exercise of the Writ

jurisdiction unless such findings are shown to be perverse. Reference in this

respect can be made to the decision of Supreme Court in case of Union of

India Vs. Parma Nanda reported in AIR 1989 SC 1185. The disciplinary

authority has recorded that despite opportunity being granted the petitioner

had made no representation in response to the provisional order passed by

him recording his tentative reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the

inquiry officer.

In view of such ₹facts, petition deserves to be and hereby

dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Rule made

discharged.

( AKIL KURESHI, CJ )

Sukhendu