Shri Arindam Ghosh vs The State Of Tripura And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 152 Tri

                                   Page 1 of 4




                      HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                            AGARTALA
                          Review Pet. No.11/2023

Shri Arindam Ghosh
                                                             ----Petitioner(s)
                                        Versus
The State of Tripura and others
                                                          -----Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate, Mrs. P. Chakraborty, Advocate, Ms. Mampi Chakraborty, Advocate, Ms. Ankita Pal, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dipankar Sarma, Addl. G.A.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH

Order 08/02/2023

Heard Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted

by Mrs. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner.

Also heard Mr. Dipankar Sarma, learned Addl. Government Advocate

appearing for the respondents-State.

2. This review petition is filed by the review petitioner under

Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 114 of the Code of

Civil Procedure seeking review of the judgment and order dated 03.11.2022

passed by this Court in W.A. No.27 of 2017 insofar as the findings of guilt

given against the petitioner in the departmental proceedings was vitiated by

denial of natural justice and defective procedure followed in the

departmental proceedings.

3. The case of the review petitioner, in brief, is that while working

as Assistant Engineer in the office of the Executive Engineer, PHE Division,

Ambassa with another Junior Engineer Sudip Sinha, he was the in-charge of

supervising the construction of a overhead water tank. After about four

years of his transfer from the said office, a departmental proceeding was

initiated against the petitioner and his colleague Sudip Sinha on the charge

of "negligence in supervising the construction work" by the contractor.

Though the overall supervising responsibility was on the Executive

Engineer, but basing on the perfunctory evidence the petitioner and Sudip

Sinha were found guilty of negligence in the proceedings and major

punishment was imposed on them. Thereafter, the petitioner filed statutory

appeal but of no avail. As such, he preferred a writ petition being WP(C)

No.266 of 2011 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide

judgment and order dated 25.04.2017. Against that order, the petitioner had

preferred an appeal being W.A. No.27 of 2017 which was also dismissed by

the Division Bench by its judgment and order dated 03.11.2022. Aggrieved

thereby, the petitioner has preferred this review petition. Hence, this case.

4. Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Mrs.

P. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner,

contends that though the construction work was entrusted with the

petitioner, the overall supervising responsibility was on the Executive

Engineer but in spite of that the charge of negligence in supervision of

construction work was leveled against him in the departmental proceedings

and the petitioner was not afforded reasonable opportunity to defend his

case during such proceedings and the Division Bench without appreciating

that aspect of the matter passed an erroneous judgment without following

the principle of natural justice. Counsel also contends that the Division

Bench committed an error in the judgment while coming to the conclusion

that Sri R.K. Majumder, Chairman of Technical Expert Committee was

examined by the Inquiring Authority and cross-examined by the petitioner

and, therefore, his contention that he was deprived of cross-examining the

said witness is devoid of merit is an apparent error on the face of record.

Counsel further contends that the Division Bench while extracting the order

of the appellate authority dated 24.05.2011 in paragraph-11 of the judgment

did not consider the finding of the appellate authority regarding closure of

prosecution witness was nothing but a misquotation of order dated

19.05.2009 in which the Inquiring Authority ordered closure of prosecution

witnesses because of non-appearance of Ranjit Majumder to face cross-

examination despite issuance of several notices at the instance of the

petitioner on acceptance of VCD by the Inquiring Authority subsequent to

completion of evidence of said Sri Majumder and as such, it is an apparent

error on the face of the record. Accordingly, he prays for review of the

impugned judgment and order dated 03.11.2022.

5. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the review

petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that whether the contentions raised by

the learned senior counsel hereinabove are right or wrong is not to be

commented on by us because in case, the petitioner is aggrieved, he can

avail the remedy of appeal by approaching the Apex Court. The powers of

review are limited to correcting errors which are apparent on the face of the

record and on bare perusal of the impugned judgment under review, we find

no such error apparent on the face of the record.

6. Accordingly, we find no merit in the review petition which is

accordingly dismissed.

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

 (ARINDAM LODH), J                              CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)

Pulak