Smt.Dipanjana Sinha vs The State Of Tripura
2023 Latest Caselaw 94 Tri

                                 Page 1


                 HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                       AGARTALA
                    W.A. 85 of 2021
Smt.Dipanjana Sinha, wife of Sri Utpal Sinha, D/o Sri Ranjit
Sinha, resident of Manipuri Para, Barjala, P.O. Barjala, P.S. New
Capital Complex, District- West Tripura
                                               ----Appellant(s)
                          Versus
1. The State of Tripura, represented          by the Secretary,
Department of Home, Government of Tripura, New Capital
Complex, Agartala, West Tripura
2. The Director General of Police, Government of Tripura, Police
Headquarter, Fire Brigade Chowmuhani, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West
Agartala, District- West Tripura
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Ranje, P.O.
Kumarghat, P.S. Kumarghat, District- Unakoti, Tripura
4. The Superintendent of Police, North Tripura District,
Dharmanagar, P.O. + P.S. Dharmanagar, District- North Tripura
                                                          ----Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s)           :              Mr. AK Pal, Advocate
For Respondent(s)          :              Mr. D. Sarma, Addl. GA
Date of hearing & delivery
of judgment                :              19.01.2023
Whether fit for reporting         :       Yes / No
            HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
                 Judgment & Order (Oral)
19/01/2023
(T. Amarnath Goud, ACJ)

     This   appeal        has   been   filed   by   the   original   petitioner

challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated

08.01.2021 passed in WP(C) no.168 of 2020.

The original petitioner was engaged as a Woman Sub

Inspector in Tripura Police Force. On 21.01.2019, a departmental

proceeding was initiated against the petitioner.

Page 2

During the inquiry proceeding, the petitioner was served with

several notices by the inquiring authority to participate in the

proceeding. Despite service of notice, the petitioner did not

participate before the inquiry officer or the disciplinary authority.

Multiple opportunities were given to the petitioner, but she did

not avail these opportunities. Inquiry officer thereupon submitted

his report after completion of the inquiry ex parte holding that

the charges against the petitioner were proved. After considering

the inquiry officer's report, the disciplinary authority passed a

provisional order of punishment on 11th July, 2019 holding that

the charges against the petitioner were correctly held to have

been proved and accordingly proposed major punishment of

dismissal from service of the petitioner for her gross misconduct,

negligence and dereliction of duties and insubordination. Even

after service of this provisional order dated 11th July, 2019 the

petitioner did not respond. The disciplinary authority, therefore,

passed the order of dismissal dated 29th July, 2019 in which it

was recorded that the delinquent official was granted ample

opportunities to participate in the departmental proceedings, but

she neither appeared nor submitted any defence statement. The

inquiry was, therefore, conducted ex parte. Though the

provisional order of punishment was served upon the petitioner Page 3

but she made no representation. The disciplinary authority,

therefore, proceeded to pass the order of dismissal of the

petitioner from service. The said order of the disciplinary

authority was challenged by the petitioner before the Deputy

Inspector General, the appellate authority. The appellate

authority in his order dated 24th September, 2019 recorded that

he had granted personal hearing to the petitioner but was not

convinced on the grounds why the petitioner was not able to

participate in the departmental proceedings. The petitioner had

pointed out that she had family responsibilities and family

problems and she was also unwell. The appellate authority,

however, was unmoved and dismissed the appeal.

Challenging the said order of dismissal dated 27.09.2019

passed by the disciplinary authority and further order dated

24.09.2019 passed by the appellant authority, the petitioner has

filed a writ petition being WP(C) 168 of 2020 before this court. A

learned single Judge of this court after going through the

contentions, made therein, having prima facie found the

petitioner negligent towards her duty had dismissed the writ

petition. Being aggrieved, the instant writ appeal has been filed

by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the

appellant was prevented by reasonable causes not to appear Page 4

before the inquiring authority, and the ex parte order passed by

the inquiring authority is bad in law.

Objecting the submission of learned counsel for the

appellant, learned Additional GA has submitted that the appellant

was provided with ample opportunities but, intentionally she did

not appear before the inquiring authority. Learned Additional GA

has further contended that under compelling circumstances, the

inquiring authority has passed the order ex parte since all the

allegations against the appellant have been well established.

We have perused the relevant documents relating to the

instant matter. After perusal of the same, it is aptly clear that by

radiogram message dated 08.11.2018, the petitioner was called

by the S.P., North, but she did not turn up. Subsequently, letters

dated 02.03.2019 and 20.02.2019 were issued by the inquiring

authority upon the petitioner, but despite receipt of the letters,

the petitioner did not turn up. Further, the appeal dated

19.08.2019 submitted by the petitioner is not supported by any

medical evidences. The record clearly establish that facing

serious charges in a departmental inquiry, the petitioner did not

participate despite several notices and opportunities being given

to her. From the stage of holding of inquiry by the inquiry officer

till passing of the final order by the disciplinary authority

petitioner appeared only once. At no stage, the petitioner either Page 5

filed her defence statement or actively participated in

departmental inquiry. Even to the provisional order of

punishment, the petitioner did not respond despite service of the

order. Further, from the records, it is well established that the

charges against the appellant were serious and also despite

ample opportunities being given to her, she remained wilfully

adamant. The learned single Judge after going all the

circumstances has rightly passed the impugned judgment

dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner.

As such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned

order dated 08.01.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge in

WP(C) No. 168 of 2020. Accordingly, appeal is, therefore,

dismissed.

             JUDGE                                 CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)




Saikat