Tripura High Court
Sri K. Nagaraj vs The Union Of India And Others on 15 November, 2022
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C)(CAT)No.01 of 2022
Sri K. Nagaraj, IPS(Retd.)
..........Petitioner(s)
Versus
The Union of India and Others
..........Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Lodh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Dey, Advocate General.
Mr. B. Majumder, Asst. S.G.
Ms. A. Chakraborty, Adv.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY
Order
15.11.2022
Heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
as well as Mr. S.S. Dey, learned Advocate General assisted by Ms. A.
Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1, 2, 4, 5
and 6 and Mr. B. Majumder, learned Asst. S.G. appearing for the respondent
No.7.
2. The case of the petitioner is that in the year 1983 the
petitioner joined in Indian Police Service and in August, 1985 he joined as
Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Khowai and thereafter, he was posted in
various posts in Tripura Police. While he was deputed as DIG of CRPF at
Hyderabad, CBI lodged an FIR against him under Section 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988. After registration of the case on 24.03.2005 he was
suspended from service on the ground that a criminal case was registered
against him. After obtaining views from CBI, on 05.07.2006, the Ministry of
Home Affairs, Government of India revoked the suspension order. On
28.05.2009, as per recommendation of the CBI, the Ministry of Home
Affairs, Government of India initiated a departmental proceeding against
him on the identical charge, he returned back to Tripura. As per
recommendation of Screening Committee of the Government of Tripura, the
petitioner was promoted on ad-hoc basis to the post of Additional Director
General of Police on 16.09.2004. It may be mentioned herein that prior to
promotion to the post of Additional Director General of Police, the
Government of Tripura obtained views from CBI. Thereafter, vide order
dated 26.12.2015, the petitioner was promoted to the post of DGP on ad-
hoc basis and vide order dated 30.12.2015, he was promoted from DGP to
Apex Scale of DGP (Head of Police). On 10.04.2017, he relinquished the
charge of DGP, Tripura and subsequently, he was posted as DG, SIPARD
and he worked there till 21.05.2018. While he was serving as DG, SIPARD
he was honourably acquitted by the Special CBI Court vide judgment and
order dated 27.12.2017 and after acquittal, vide letter dated 18.01.2018, he
informed about the acquittal to the Union Home Secretary, Government of
Tripura and Chief Secretary, Government of Tripura.
3. On 01.05.2018, he was most illegally transferred from the post
of DG, SIPARD to DG, Prison, when there was no post of DG, Prison. On
29.05.2018, he appeared before the Standing Medical Board, Government of
Tripura for his knee ailment and the Standing Medical Board referred him to
CARE Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment and in furtherance thereof,
he went to Hyderabad for his treatment. By the order dated 08.06.2018,
without issuing any show cause notice, the ad-hoc promotions of the
petitioner were cancelled and challenging the order dated 08.06.2018, he
filed an original application before the Hon'ble Central Administrative
Tribunal, Guwahati and the same was registered and marked as O.A. 311 of
2018. While the O.A. 311 of 2018 was pending before the Hon'ble Central
Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati, the respondents initiated a departmental
proceeding for minor penalty on the charge that he availed leave without
prior permission from the competent authority. By the judgment and order
dated 05.04.2019, the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati
dismissed the O.A. 311 of 2018 and on 16.06.2019, the Inquiry Officer in
connection with the departmental proceeding initiated by the Government of
Tripura for minor penalty, submitted Inquiry report holding that no charge
has been proved, except the petitioner did not submit any application in the
prescribed format prior to proceed on medical leave. On 29.07.2019, the
petitioner joined back and submitted medical leave application in prescribed
format along with all medical documents in original. The petitioner retired
from service on superannuation on 31.07.2019.
4. By challenging the judgment and order dated 05.04.2019, he
has filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura and the
same was registered and marked as WP(C)(CAT)No.03 of 2019 and vide
order dated 20.08.2019 the Hon'ble High Court disposed of the writ petition
granting liberty to the petitioner to file Review Application before the
Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati, against the order dated
05.04.2019 and accordingly, he has filed the review petition and the same
was registered and marked as Review Application No.08 of 2019. After
hearing both sides the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal vide order
dated 25.02.2022 passed in Review Application No.08 of 2019 and the
judgment and order passed in WP(C)(CAT)No.03 of 2019 dated 05.04.2019
dismissed the application. Hence, this instant writ petition is filed.
5. According to this court, the root cause is the litigation for
withdrawing the ad-hoc orders which has been issued by the respondents to
the petitioner taking away the honour which has been extended to him by
way of his position in service has been deprived. From the record and the
submissions of learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents it
clearly established that before withdrawing the ad-hoc promotion given to
the petitioner, the petitioner was not put to any notice which amounts to
gross violation of doctrine audi alteram partem and in view of the same, this
court is not inclined to permit the impugned proceedings which has been
confirmed by the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal. Even for a while, on this sole ground, the impugned order cannot
sustain. Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed by setting aside the
proceedings withdrawing his ad-hoc promotion. The learned Advocate
General has also brought to the notice of this court that the disciplinary
proceedings are pending. The respondents are at liberty to proceed with the
disciplinary proceedings, if so advised in accordance with law.
In terms of the above observation, this writ petition is allowed
and disposed of.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
Sabyasachi B
