Mr. Al Saha vs Mr. D. Bhattacharjee
2022 Latest Caselaw 1064 Tri

                  HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                          AGARTALA
                      WP(C) 1039/2022
For Petitioner(s)       :    Mr. AL Saha, Advocate
For Respondent(s)       :    Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, GA

Mr. S. Saha, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH Order 13/12/2022 Heard Mr. AL Saha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned GA assisted by Mr. S. Saha, learned counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner by way of filing the instant writ petition has challenged his termination order. The main contention of the petitioner is that no reasonable opportunity was given to him before terminating him from service.

This is a case when the High Court of Tripura has set-aside and quashed the entire selection process of the teachers commonly known as "10323 teachers". The State has preferred appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also upheld and affirmed the judgment and order passed by this court.

Mr. AL Saha, learned counsel has drawn my attention to Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules suggests the action to be taken by the disciplinary authority on the inquiry report furnished by the inquiring authority. Mr. Saha, learned counsel has vehemently argued that the principle of natural justice has been violated. Mr. Saha, has also informed this court that in pursuance of an RTI application the Registry of the Hon'ble Supreme Court informed that the name of the petitioner is not in the list of those terminated teachers. In the instant case, no departmental proceeding was initiated and no inquiry report was also furnished, and as such, there is no question of furnishing any inquiry report. The petitioner relying on Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vehemently has argued that principle of natural justice has been violated. I am at loss to understand, in the context of the case, how Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules would come into play. In the opinion of this court, the petitioner may approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court to clarify the reply given by the Information Officer of the Supreme Court under the RTI Act.

The service of the petitioner was terminated in view of the judgment and order passed by this court which is upheld and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Furthermore, principle of natural justice is not a straight jacket formula and it depends upon various factors. In view of this, I do not find any merit in the instant writ petition and, according to me, this is entirely a frivolous petition and for this a huge amount of cost is to be imposed. However, this court refrains itself from imposing any cost considering the present status of the petitioner. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. Interlocutory application(s), if any filed, also stands dismissed.

JUDGE

Saikat