Rajkumar Tripura vs The State Of Tripura
2021 Latest Caselaw 490 Tri

                              Page - 1 of 6




                   HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                         AGARTALA

                         WP(C) No.643/2020
Rajkumar Tripura,
S/o - Sri Nandi Kumar Tripura, R/o Vill -Taikumba,
P.O - Bhuratali, P.S - Manubazar, District- South Tripura.

                                                  .............. Petitioner(s).
                                  Vs.

1. The State of Tripura, represented by its Chief Secretary, General
   Administration (AR) Department, Government of Tripura,
   P.O - Kunjaban, P.S - New Capital Complex, District - West Tripura.
2. The Addl. Chief Secretary,
   GA (AR) Department, Government of Tripura, P.O - Kunjaban,
   P.S - New Capital Complex, District - West Tripura.
3. The Principal Secretary,
   General Administration (AR) Department, Government of Tripura,
   P.O - Kunjaban, P.S - New Capital Complex, District - West Tripura.
4. The Principal Secretary,
   Department of Forest, Government of Tripura, P.O - Kunjaban,
   P.S - New Capital Complex, District-West Tripura.
5. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
   Department of Forest, Government of Tripura, P.O.- Agartala,
   P.S - West Agartala, District- West Tripura.
                                                .............. Respondent(s).
                                   Page - 2 of 6




                              _B_E_ F_O_R_E_
      HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
      For Petitioner(s)                 : Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, Advocate,
                                          Mr. S Dey, Advocate.
      For Respondent(s)                 : Mr. D Sharma, Addl. Govt. Adv.
      Date of hearing & judgment         : 9th April, 2021.
      Whether fit for reporting         : No.


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

Petitioner has challenged an order dated 16th July 2019, passed by

the disciplinary authority and further order dated 13th March 2020, passed by

the appellate authority by which the said authority granted partial relief to

the petitioner against the order of disciplinary authority.

[2] Brief facts are as under :

The petitioner was visited with a charge sheet dated 10th July, 2014

for holding an inquiry under Rule 14 of Central Civil Service (Classification,

Control and Appeal) Rules [CCS(CCA) Rules] as adopted by the State of

Tripura. The charge sheet contained only one Article of Charge, namely that

the petitioner who was a Tripura Forest Service, Grade - II Officer while

working as Wildlife Warden, Trishna Wild Life Sanctuary, had committed

financial irregularities by making adjustment of expenditure without

carrying out execution of work properly. He had thereby committed Page - 3 of 6

misconduct and violated Rule 3 of Tripura Civil Services(Conduct) Rules,

1988. It was pointed out that during the petitioner's tenure three separate

works of construction and maintenance were awarded at the said wildlife

sanctuary. It was alleged that in one such contract work worth only

Rs.1,43,000/- lakhs (rounded off) was executed whereas bill amount

sanctioned was for Rs.2,17,000/-. In another contract, no work was executed

despite which payments of Rs.1,44,000/- were made and in the third

contract, there was improper adjustment of Rs.38,250/- towards cost of

watering and weeding which was not done.

[3] A detailed inquiry was conducted upon completion of which the

inquiry officer submitted his report dated 15th May, 2018. He held that the

charge was proved. Copy of the inquiry officer's report was supplied to the

petitioner and allowed to make representation which he did. The disciplinary

authority after considering the report of the inquiry officer, other materials

on record and the representation of the petitioner, passed an order on 17 th

July, 2019 in which he ordered recovery of sum of Rs.2,55,508/- and further

imposed the punishment of withholding of the increment for a period of two

years without cumulative effect. The petitioner challenged the order of

disciplinary authority before the appellate authority. The appellate authority

by the order dated 13th March 2020 modified the punishment by reducing the Page - 4 of 6

recovery amount up to Rs.38,250/- and the period for withholding of the

increment to one year without future effect. These orders, the petitioner has

challenged in the present petition.

[4] Appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel Mr. Arijit Bhowmik

vehemently contended that the petitioner had not committed any misconduct

despite which he has been visited with penalty. He submitted that as per the

Government instructions, two separate penalties for the same misconduct

cannot be imposed. He further submitted that the authorities have not

examined the documents on record before passing the impugned orders.

[5] On the other hand, learned Government Advocate Mr. Debalaya

Bhattacharya opposed the petition contending that the disciplinary authority

has come to factual findings which are not open to challenge. Punishment is

commensurate with the proved charges. In short, the petition may be

dismissed.

[6] Learned counsel for the petitioner may be correct in pointing out

that during the course of the inquiry no element of doubtful integrity has

been established. That has to be the reason why the petitioner is visited with

two minor penalties and not any major punishment. Nevertheless, when it is

found from the materials on record that the petitioner who was working in Page - 5 of 6

the supervisory capacity, failed to ensure that payments for work not done

are not released, he must take at least some blame for the public fund

pilferage. In any case, the findings of the inquiry officer as confirmed by the

disciplinary and appellate authority are not in challenge before me. That

being the position, only question would be of the nature of penalty that

should follow. Here also, the disciplinary authority enjoys considerable

latitude and discretionary powers. We have noticed that the order passed by

the disciplinary authority was toned-down by the appellate authority. Not

only the recovery of loss was reduced but the period for withholding the

increment was also reduced from two years to one year. There is no further

scope for interference.

[7] The Government of India instructions referred to by Mr. Bhowmik

copy of which is produced at Annexure - 12 does not mandate that two

separate penalties cannot be imposed. In fact, it clarifies that there is no bar

to award the penalty of recovery of loss along with other suitable penalty.

This is precisely what has been done in the present case. The appellate

authority has directed recovery of part of the amount of loss caused to the

Government and also imposed a minor punishment of withholding of

increment for one year.

Page - 6 of 6

In the result, petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any,

also stands disposed of. Rule made discharged.

( AKIL KURESHI, CJ )

Sukhendu