Sri Rajib Biswas vs The State Of Tripura
2022 Latest Caselaw 1063 Tri

                                Page 1 of 5




                         HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                               AGARTALA
                             W.A. No.173/2020

Sri Rajib Biswas, Son of Sri Vinod Bihari Biswas, resident of Madhya
Laxmibill, Ward No.4, P.O. + P.S.-Bishalgarh, District-Sepahijala, Tripura.
                                                        ...... Appellant(s)
                           VERSUS
1. The State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary, Department Rural
Development, Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Building, P.S. New
Capital Complex, P.O.-Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura-799006.
2. The District Magistrate & Collector, Government of Tripura, Sepahijala
District, Bishramganj.
3. The Block Development Officer, Mohanbhog R.D. Block, Sepahijala
District, Tripura.
                                              ......Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Kawsik Nath, Advocate.

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

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY

Date of hearing and judgment : 13th December, 2022.

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by

Mr. Kawsik Nath, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant. Also heard

Mr. Mangal Debbarma, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for

the respondents-State.

2. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order

dated 22.05.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.1071 of

2018 whereby the learned Single Judge did not find the reasons assigned in

the impugned order of termination dated 26.03.2018 issued by the

respondent No.3, the Block Development Officer, Mohanbhog R.D. Block,

Sepahijala District to be treated as stigmatic and consequently, dismissed the

writ petition.

3. The case of the appellant, in short, is that he was first engaged

as Gram Rozgar Sevak under MGNREGA Scheme of Bishalgarh R.D.

Block vide order dated 11.03.2010 on contractual basis for a period of two

years which may be extended from time to time subject to satisfactory

performance of duties entrusted upon him. Accordingly, the service of the

petitioner was extended and he continued his service in Bishalgarh R.D.

Block and subsequently, by a transfer order, he joined Mohanbhog R.D.

Block on 24.10.2016. Thereafter, on 13.02.2017 the petitioner met with an

accident resulting which he sustained several injuries and consequent

thereto, he had to be treated in various hospitals. He filed application for

leave to the BDO, Mohanbhog RD Block on 06.04.2017 along with medical

certificates. In the meanwhile, petitioner was served with a show-cause

notice dated 01.12.2017 for his alleged unauthorized absence from duty

w.e.f. 02.05.2017. In reply to the said show-cause notice, petitioner

submitted his representation on 05.12.2017 wherein he confronted the

allegations leveled against him in the said show-cause notice. But ultimately,

respondent No.3, Block Development Officer, Mohanbhog R.D. Block,

Sepahijala District issued the impugned termination order against the

petitioner being found him unsuitable for the said post.

4. Being aggrieved by this order of termination, which according

to the petitioner is premeditated, illegal and arbitrary, he preferred a writ

petition being WP(C) No.1071 of 2018 before this Court on the ground that

the said order of termination was backed without any reason although the

petitioner had given sufficient explanation in his representation regarding his

alleged unauthorized absence reflected in the show-cause notice dated

01.12.2017. Subsequently, the learned Single Judge dismissed the

aforementioned writ petition vide judgment and order dated 22.05.2020.

Being aggrieved by that order of dismissal, the petitioner has filed the

present writ appeal before this Court. Hence, this case.

5. Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.

Kawsik Nath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the

impugned order of termination was issued without serving any proper show-

cause notice to the petitioner which is in gross violation of principles of

natural justice. Accordingly, he prays for setting aside the impugned

judgment and order dated 22.05.2020.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Mangal Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A.

appearing for the respondents-State, vehemently objected the submission of

the learned senior counsel for the appellant contending that the learned

Single Judge did not commit any error in dismissing the writ petition as prior

show-cause notice was served on the appellant before the termination order

was issued. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ appeal.

7. Having heard the submissions of the rival parties, we are of the

considered view that no proper show-cause notice was served on the

petitioner whereas in the counter affidavit of the respondents, it was

mentioned that notice was served on the petitioner on 31.05.2017. But the

said notice which was placed on record does not bear the received signature

with date of the petitioner. As such, in our considered opinion, the said

show-cause notice has no weightage and the impugned order of termination

dated 26.03.2018 was issued in gross violation of principles of natural

justice.

Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed. The impugned

judgment and order dated 22.05.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in

WP(C) No.1071 of 2018 is set aside. Consequently, the order of termination

dated 26.03.2018 issued by the respondent No.3, the Block Development

Officer, Mohanbhog R.D. Block, Sepahijala District shall also stand

quashed. Liberty is given to the respondents to take steps in accordance with

law against the petitioner, if advised.

8. With the above observations and directions, the writ appeal is

accordingly disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY), J                          CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)




Pulak