Shri Anil Kumar Sinha vs The Secretary Cum Commissioner
2021 Latest Caselaw 123 Tri

                                 Page 1 of 4



                    HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                      _A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
                         WP(C) No.261 of 2018
Shri Anil Kumar Sinha, retired Associate Professor, S/o. Late Rajendra
Kumar Sinha, Village- Madhya Nayapara, College Road, Dharmanagar,
North Tripura, Pin-799250.
                                                  ......Petitioner(s)
                               Versus

1. The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Department of Higher Education,
Government of Tripura, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex,
Agartala, West Tripura.

2. The Director of Higher Education, Government of Tripura, P.O-
Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, West Tripura.
                                             ......Respondent(s)

_B_E_F_O_R_E_ HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI For Petitioner(s) : Petitioner-in-person.

Mr. D. Sarkar, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Addl. G.A.

Judgment & Order
delivered on             :       5th February, 2021.

Whether fit for reporting :      NO.

                    JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

Petitioner is a retired Associate Professor of the Government

College. During his service career he had faced a criminal case and a

departmental inquiry, both of which prolonged for a long time and on

account of which his service benefits and promotions were delayed. He

has prayed for granting interest on delayed release of these monitory

benefits. He also prayed for awarding compensation of Rs.80,00,000/-

towards mental agony, sufferings, legal expenses and loss of

opportunities.

[2] Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner was working

as an Assistant Professor in a Government degree college, Dharmanagar

when a criminal case of alleged defalcation of Government funds was

filed against him before the Magisterial Court in the year 2002. This

case went on till 10.12.2010 when the learned Magistrate acquitted the

petitioner from the charge for offence under Section 409 of IPC.

[3] In the meantime, the department had also independently

looking into his conduct of a missing amount of Rs.39,533/- out of a

larger amount of Rs.1,16,014/- with respect to which some irregularities

were allegedly committed by him. Initially, a show cause notice was

issued on 13.02.2001 which was followed up by a departmental charge-

sheet dated 31.12.2005. Upon completion of the inquiry, the Inquiry

Officer submitted the report holding that the charge was partially

proved. The disciplinary authority, however, passed an order dated

02.05.2013 holding that the charge was not sufficiently proved. The

departmental inquiry was thus dropped. For more than a decade thus the

petitioner's conduct remained under cloud. For nearly 8 years the

criminal case prolonged and the departmental inquiry also remained

pending, presumably on account of pendency of the criminal case based

on the same set of facts. It is undisputed that after he was acquitted by

the criminal court and exonerated in the departmental proceedings he

was granted his due increments and promotions. His grievance however

is that in the meantime he lost lot of opportunities, he had suffered great

prejudice causing serious mental agony for which he should be

adequately compensated.

[3] For several reasons the prayers of the petitioner cannot be

granted. To begin with, assessment of compensation for any such

alleged injury or loss cannot be ordinarily a subject matter of a writ

petition. More importantly, even a preliminary inquiry into any possible

loss or damage to an employee on account of pending proceedings, must

be that the proceedings were either instituted mala fide or prolonged

maliciously. In the present case, the petitioner has not made any specific

allegations of mala fides nor backed them by any evidence on record.

Significantly, no Government official in personal capacity is joined as a

respondent. To support the allegations of personal mala fides, the

concerned officer against whom such allegations are made, must be

joined as a respondent. Lastly, I have also perused the judgment of the

learned Magistrate acquitting the petitioner. It is based on strict

requirement of proof beyond doubt and inter alia on the ground that the

handwriting expert was not examined and his report was not therefore

proved. The judgment therefore cannot be said to be a judgment of clean

acquittal. The petitioner has of course been given benefit of doubt and

acquitted. Likewise, the disciplinary authority also dropped the charges

on the ground that the allegations were not proved beyond doubt though

the Inquiry Officer had suggested that the charge was partly proved.

[4] All in all, the prayers made by the petitioner cannot be

granted and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Pending application(s), if

any, also stands disposed of.

(AKIL KURESHI, CJ)

Dipesh