Tripura High Court
Sri. Bidhu Debbarma vs The State Of Tripura on 19 February, 2021
Page - 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.673/2019
Sri. Bidhu Debbarma
S/o Late Sudhan Debbarma, resident of Village - Rampada Para,
P.S. Sonamura, District - Sepahijala, Tripura, Pin - 799102.
............... Petitioner(s).
Vs.
1. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Secretary, Department of Home,
Govt. of Tripura, New Capital Complex, Agartala, Pin - 799 010.
2. The Director General of Police
Govt. of Tripura, Fire Service Choumuhani,
P.S. West Agartala, District - West Tripura, Pin - 799 001.
3. The Dy. Inspector General of Police (AR)
Government of Tripura, P.O. & P.S. - Arundhuti Nagar,
District - West Tripura, Pin - 799 003.
4. The Commandant
13 Bn., TSR, P.O. & P.S. - Kanchanpur,
North Tripura, Pin No.799 270.
............... Respondent(s).
_B_E_ F_O_R_E_
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P K Ghosh, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M Debbarma, Addl. Govt. Advocate.
Date of hearing & Judgment : 19th February, 2021.
Whether fit for reporting : No.
Page - 2 of 5
J U D G M E N T (O R A L)
Petitioner has challenged an order dated 12 th June, 2012 by
which by way of punishment he was removed from service with a further
direction to treat the entire period of his unauthorised absence as dies-non.
The petitioner has also challenged an order dated 18th April, 2019 by which
his appeal by the appellate authority came to be dismissed.
[2] Brief facts are as under :
The petitioner joined as a Constable in Tripura State Rifles(TSR)
in the year 2002. In the year 2011, the petitioner was posted under 13th
Battalion of TSR and was assigned the election duties outside the State. He
remained unauthorisedly absent on and from 13th March, 2011 from his
election duty at Karimganj. A notice dated 19th July, 2011 was dispatched
to his home address pointing out that since 13th March, 2011 he has
remained absent without permission. Two previous notices on 27 th April,
2011 and 25th May, 2011 were also sent to him. He must, therefore, report
for duty forthwith failing which strict disciplinary action would be taken
against him. The petitioner still did not resume his duty. A preliminary
inquiry was, therefore, ordered by the Commandant on 1st August, 2011.
The Assistant Commandant submitted his report dated 30 th August, 2011
of the preliminary inquiry which showed that the notices were issued to the
Page - 3 of 5
petitioner and were also served through the Sonamura Police Station
despite which he had not reported for duty. It was observed that abstaining
from duty while performing election duty was a gross misconduct.
[3] On 28th September 2011, the Commandant issued a departmental
charge sheet alleging that despite several notices the petitioner has not
reported for duty after a long period of unauthorised absence. The
petitioner did not participate in the departmental inquiry which, therefore,
proceeded ex parte. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 28th
March, 2012 and held that the charge of unauthorised absence was proved
against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority passed a provisional order
of punishment on 20th May, 2012 of removal from duty. Since the
petitioner did not respond to the said order also, the disciplinary authority
finally passed the impugned order dated 20th June, 2012 and imposed the
punishment of removal from service.
[4] The petitioner did not take any further steps even after the said
order was passed till by his own account, filed an appeal in the year 2019.
His appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police on
18th April, 2019. He recorded that the appeal was preferred after 6 years
and 7 months of the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary
authority.
Page - 4 of 5
[5] Appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel Mr. P K Ghosh
submitted that the petitioner is the only son of his aged parents. They were
taken seriously ill. The petitioner had to attend to them. Both of them
passed away soon thereafter in the years 2014 and 2015. The petitioner had
completed 10 years of satisfactory service before he was served the charge
sheet.
[6] Learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. M Debbarma
opposed the petition contending that the petitioner had committed a serious
misconduct. Departmental proceedings were conducted in consonance with
the principals of natural justice. Petitioner has not made out any ground for
interference.
[7] The case represents gross facts. The petitioner was a member of
disciplined force. In the year 2013, he was assigned a sensitive task of
providing security in conduct of elections. Without any leave or permission
of the competent authority the petitioner left the work. Several notices
from the department could not secure his presence. Eventually, the
department instituted an inquiry. Even during this inquiry the petitioner did
not participate. The order of removal was passed in the year 2012. The
petitioner challenged the same only in the year 2019. At all stages, thus the
petitioner had exhibited gross insincerity in discharge of his duties.
Page - 5 of 5
[8] Absenting from election duty by a security personnel by itself is a
serious misconduct. This was compounded by the petitioner's continued
absence from duty despite the department issuing several notices. Even the
order of punishment that the disciplinary authority passed, was challenged
by the petitioner after more than 6 years. Thus, the total period during
which the petitioner was unavailable for work or unwilling to do the work
is far more than what has been referred to in the charge sheet or the order
of removal. Surely, for such gross disregard for his official duties, the
petitioner cannot seek any leniency.
[9] Learned counsel for the petitioner fleetingly stated that the order
of removal was never served on the petitioner. Such contention is not
enough to overturn the departmental orders. Firstly, no such contention is
found in the appeal. Secondly, in the inquiry report the Inquiry Officer has
recorded the steps taken to serve the petitioner notices of various stages.
The petitioner cannot wish away these findings of the authorities by
making a simple oral assertion to the contrary.
In the result, petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any,
also stands disposed of.
( AKIL KURESHI ), CJ
Sukhendu
