For The vs For The
2022 Latest Caselaw 809 Tri

                 HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                       AGARTALA

                        WA. No. 203 of 2020


For the Appellant(s)            :      Ms. R. Purkayastha, Advocate
For the Respondent(s)           :      Mr. D. Bhattacharya, GA

Mr. S. Saha, Advocate

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY

Order 29/07/2022

Heard Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner-appellant. Also heard Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned GA assisted

by Mr. S. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

Briefly stated, a disciplinary proceeding vide memo dated

23.10.2013 had been initiated against the petitioner by the respondent

no.3 on five charges. The petitioner had submitted his defence statement

on 28.02.2014, specifically denying the charges. On completion of

inquiry, authority found that the petitioner was not guilty on all the five

charges vide his finding dated 21.01.2015 but the Disciplinary Authority

in respect of first three charges disagreed with findings of the Inquiry

Authority and asked the petitioner-appellate to submit representation. The

petitioner submitted representation on 17.08.2016. Thereafter, the

respondent no. 3 after considering the materials stated in the

representation, had imposed a penalty of withholding two increments

with cumulative effect by order dated 17.03.2017. The said order of the Disciplinary Authority was challenged and the petitioner preferred a

statutory appeal before the respondent no.2, the Appellate Authority, on

03.04.2017. The Appellate authority did not interfere with the findings

and penalty as imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. Being aggrieved,

the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1230 of 2018 before

this court. The learned single Judge after hearing the parties while

deciding the writ petition held that the Article III could not survive, but,

upheld the conclusion of the Disciplinary Authority with respect to

charge as framed under Article I vide judgment and order dated

24.06.2020. Learned single Judge further directed the disciplinary

authority to pass a fresh order on the question of appropriate punishment

to be imposed in such charged circumstance. Feeling aggrieved, and

dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge, the

appellant has preferred the instant appeal before this court.

However, Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel has submitted

that in compliance with the order passed by learned single Judge, the

Disciplinary Authority modified the order of penalty and after careful

examination of the case of the appellant, a penalty of withholding two

increments without cumulative effect was imposed upon the appellant.

At the time of hearing of the present appeal, the court asked

the appellant to file an additional affidavit incorporating the fact of

penalty which was imposed upon the petitioner afresh by order dated

19.01.2021.

We find that the petitioner-appellant has sought for approval

of the District Magistrate and Collector to spend the money involved to

execute the work under MGNREGA scheme. The DM and Collector did

not inform the petitioner anything. However, considering the exigencies

of the situation, the petitioner-appellant has spent the money. There is no

evidence that he has utilized the money for his own gain. Only the

allegation is that he could not follow the DFPRT rules for not taking due

approval of the DM and Collector. Merely, this can be said that some

procedural lapses were there. True it is, that the executing officers must

follow the DFPRT rules to keep transparency in utilizing the government

funds. DFPRT rules is mandatory in nature. Any breach will definitely

leave a space to question transparency in the utilization of Government

funds. So, violation of the rule is not expected from the officers

concerned. The intention of the legislatures to enact DFPRT rules should

not be flouted in any manner whatsoever. Keeping in view this aspect, in

the instant case, the petitioner has committed breach of rules. He should

have pursued the matter with the concerned DM and Collector before

execution of works whatever exigencies were there. For this reason, we

find no error in the decision of the Disciplinary Authority confirmed by

the Appellate Authority.

However, considering all aspects of the matter and the nature

of irregularities committed by the petitioner-appellant, we deem it

pertinent to reduce the penalty of withholding two increments without

cumulative effect as imposed by the disciplinary authority as the said penalty appears to be disproportionate. Accordingly, the said penalty is

reduced to the extent of withholding of one increment without cumulative

effect. As a corollary, the respondents shall release/refund one increment

to the petitioner-appellant within a period of 3(three) months from today.

Needless to say, that, the service of the petitioner will be regulated

accordingly.

With the aforesaid order, the instant writ appeal stands partly

allowed.

           JUDGE                                             JUDGE




 Rohit