Shri Bhusan Datta vs The State Of Tripura And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 234 Tri

                                  Page 1 of 5



                       HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                         _A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
                              WP(C) No.112 of 2021

Shri Bhusan Datta
                                                     ......Petitioner(s)

                                  VERSUS

The State of Tripura and others
                                                      ......Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s)         :       Mr. A.K. Pal, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)         :       Mr. D. Bhattacharya, G.A.

      HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
                                  ORDER

25/02/2021 The petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal dated

25.11.2019 issued by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the

appellate authority.

[2] Brief facts are that in the year 2019 the petitioner was

discharging the duty as a Rifleman (GD) in Tripura State Rifles and was

posted in 12th Battalion. On 23.06.2019 a charge-sheet was issued to the

petitioner which contained one charge which reads as under :

"That on 12.05.2019 at about 2200 hrs No.97020017 Naib Subedar(GD) Bipul Ranjan De of Adm Coy, No.91010597 Naib Sudedar(GD) Pradip Ry of Adm Coy, No.97050103 Havildar(D) Kamal Paul of Adm Coy, No.96030950 Havildar(GD) Raju Dhar of Adm Coy, No.97040557 Naik(GD) Maheswar Das of Adm Coy, No.96030801 Naik(GD) Satyabrata Sinha in connivance with No.01071050

Rfn (GD) Bhusan Datta of A Coy of 12th Bn TSR(IR-VIII) uses criminal force, commits and assault, breaks into the room and damages property of No.06110931 Rfn(GD) Bhojveer Singh Chauhan, „F‟ Coy (now attached with Unit M I Room), 12th Bn TSR (IR-VIII) which amounts to gross misconducts and thereby punishable under section 12(1) of TSR Act, 1983."

[3] The petitioner denied the charge upon which a departmental

inquiry was conducted. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated

17.12.2019 and held that the charge against the petitioner was proved. The

disciplinary authority thereupon passed a provisional order of punishment

on 22.10.2019. The petitioner made a representation in response to such

provisional order. The disciplinary authority thereafter passed the

impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner

challenged the order before the appellate authority. Appeal having been

dismissed this petition has been filed.

[4] Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that

the charge against the petitioner was not proved despite which the Inquiry

Officer concluded that the charge is proved. The disciplinary authority

committed a serious error in accepting such findings of the Inquiry Officer.

He took me through the statements of important witnesses in support of his

contention. Noticeably, counsel for the petitioner did not raise any

contention of breach of principles of natural justice or of following

statutory rules in conduct of such inquiry. I have, therefore, focused only

on the limited question of proof of the charge.

[5] At the outset, it can be recorded that the scope of interference

in findings of facts arrived at by the disciplinary authority during a validly

constituted domestic inquiry, in exercise of writ jurisdiction is always

limited. It is well settled through series of judgments that unless and until

the findings are shown to be perverse, the Court would not interfere with

such findings recorded by the disciplinary authority.

[6] In this context, the case of the department as emerging from

the record was that one Bhojveer Singh Chauhan who was the co-employee

of the petitioner, was assaulted at about 10 o‟clock at night on 12.05.2019

by several persons in which the petitioner was part of the design. As per the

department and as stated by the principal witness Bhojveer Singh Chauhan,

on the night of 12.05.2019 the petitioner came to the barrack where

Bhojveer Singh was sleeping, woke him up and asked him to perform night

sentry duty. Bhojveer Singh told him that he had already performed such

duty twice and that he was unwell and therefore would not be in a position

to perform the duty on that night. The petitioner thereupon went away from

the barrack and soon within minutes five other people came to the barrack

where Bhojveer Singh was sleeping armed with bamboo and plastic sticks

and assaulted him and also damaged the furniture. The Inquiry Officer had

examined several witnesses not only in connection with the precise incident

of the night of 12.05.2019 but of the events which were precursor to the

assault of the night of 12.05.2019. It has never been the case of the

department that the petitioner actively participated in assaulting Bhojveer

Singh. The Inquiry Officer on the basis of the statements of witnesses and

other evidence on record came to the conclusion that the assault on

Bhojveer Singh was neither a sudden act, nor can the petitioner disassociate

himself from the incident merely because he may not have entered the

barrack room where Bhojveer Singh was sleeping at the time of assault.

Significantly, the assault on Bhojveer Singh took place within minutes of

the petitioner waking him from the sleep and asking him to perform his

night duty to which Bhojveer Singh showed his disinclination citing health

reasons and the fact that he had already finished his quota of night duty.

The conclusions of the disciplinary authority which are based on such

findings of the Inquiry Officer need no interference. These findings cannot

be stated to be perverse. As recorded earlier, since the petitioner has not

raised any ground of defect in conducting the inquiry, I have not examined

any such aspect.

[7] The allegations proved against the petitioner were thus quite

serious. He was a member of a disciplined force. He and his other co-

employees had breached law and assaulted the co-worker.

[8] In the result, petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if

any, also stands disposed of.

(AKIL KURESHI), CJ

Dipesh