The State Of Tripura And Others vs Sri Mithan Das And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 699 Tri

                                   Page 1 of 4




                       HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                             AGARTALA


                   IA No.2 of 2022 in WA No.147 of 2022
                                    and
                            WA No.147 of 2022

The State of Tripura and others
                                              .............. Applicant/Appellant(s).
                                     Versus
Sri Mithan Das and another
                                              ........................ Respondent(s).

For Applicant/Appellant(s) : Mr. D. Sarma, Addl. GA.

For Respondent(s)          : Mr. D. C. Roy, Advocate,
                             Mr. A. K. Pal, Advocate.

   HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD

                                  _O_R_D_E_R_


28/08/2023


IA No.2 of 2022 in WA No.147 of 2022

Heard Mr. D. Sarma, learned Additional Government Advocate

for the appellants-State and Mr. D.C. Roy, learned counsel together with Mr.

A. K. Pal, learned counsel for the writ petitioners/respondents on the prayer for

condonation of delay of 105 days in preferring the instant memo of appeal. The

appeal is directed against the order dated 21.01.2022 passed in WP(C) No.39

of 2022 (Annexure-C) by which the learned Writ Court directed the

respondents to complete the departmental proceedings bearing No.59 of 2014,

as initiated by the memorandum dated 02.09.2014, within a period of 4(four)

months, failing which it would stand automatically quashed.

Mr. D. Sarma, learned Additional Government Advocate

submits that the prayer for extension of time made through I.A. No.01/2022

was also refused by order dated 01.08.2022. Learned Additional Government

Advocate submits that the writ petition was disposed of on the first date

without giving any opportunity to the respondents to file counter affidavit. It is

submitted that the delay in filing the present appeal is not inordinate or

unexplained. The appeal was filed on 20th September, 2022 after the

application for extension of time was rejected on 01.08.2022. It is submitted

that the appellants have good case on merits. Appellants have relied upon a

recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Others

V/s Shravan Kumar reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2032 in Civil Appeal

No. 1942 of 2014. By referring the said judgment it is submitted that the

Supreme Court had frowned upon passing of such conditional orders that if the

proceedings have not completed within a stipulated time, it would abate and

would become a nullity. It has been observed that the High Court have ignored

the Fundamental Principles that fixing of such time period was only a matter of

procedure with an expectation of conclusion of the proceedings in an

expeditious manner. The period of 2(two) months have not acquired any such

mandatory/statutory characters so as to nullify the entire disciplinary

proceedings after its expiry. It is submitted that delay may be condoned and the

writ appeal may be heard on merits as it raises an important question of law.

Learned counsel for the writ petitioners/respondents has strongly

opposed the prayer and an objection petition has been filed. It is submitted that

the appeal has been filed much beyond the four months period stipulated in the

order dated 21st January, 2022 passed in WP(C) No.39 of 2022 by the Writ

Court. In fact, the application for extension of time was filed after the expiry of

the four months period. The appellants are, therefore, not at all diligent in

carrying out the orders of the Writ Court. No plausible explanation has been

furnished on the part of the appellants for condoning the delay in such

circumstances. The writ petitioners/respondents had approached this Court

since the enquiry proceedings were pending for 8(eight) years. In such

circumstances, the direction was issued by the Writ Court to conclude it within

a period of 4(four) months, failing which it would stand automatically quashed.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taken into

account the explanations urged by the appellants and the objections taken by

the writ petitioners/respondents, we are of the considered opinion that the delay

is not inordinate or shows a deliberate act or negligence on the part of the

appellants-State in preferring the appeal. This Court is also conscious of the

legal position as regards fixation of time limits for conclusion of departmental

proceedings with a rider that it would abate or stand quashed in view of the

decisions rendered by the Apex Court from time to time, such as in the case of

Union of India and Others V/S Shravan Kumar (supra) cited above by the

appellants. As such, taking an overall view in the matter, the delay in preferring

the appeal is condoned in the interest of justice.

The I.A. stands disposed of.

WA No.147 of 2022

Admit.

Matter be listed for hearing on 09.10.2023.

In the meantime, the operation of the impugned order, so far as it

relates to quashing of the departmental proceedings shall remain stayed. The

parties are expected to endeavour and conclude the departmental proceedings,

if not concluded, in a strict time frame, in the meantime.

(T. AMARNATH GOUD), J                                           (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ




Munna S   MUNNA SAHA   Digitally signed by MUNNA SAHA
                       Date: 2023.09.01 17:50:17 +05'30'