Tripura High Court
Sri Goutam Saha vs The State Of Tripura And Ors on 5 October, 2023
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) NO.174 OF 2023
Sri Goutam Saha
......... Petitioner(s)
Vs.
The State of Tripura and ors.
........Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Bhaumik, Advocate.
Mr. S. Dey, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharyya, Advocate.
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & Order : 05.10.2023.
Whether fit for reporting : YES/NO.
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL)
This present writ petition has been filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-
"i. Issue Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause
as to why a Writ of Certiorari for setting aside the provisional order
dated 28.08.2019(Annexure-2), the final order dated
17.09.2019(Annexure-3) as well as the Article of Charge(Annexure-1)
to the writ petition shall not be set aside and quashed.
ii. Issue a Rule calling upon the respondents and each one
of them to show cause as to why a Writ of Certiorari and/or in the
nature thereof shall not be issued quashing the order dated
01.02.2020(Annuxure-4) passed by the Appellate Authority and the
order dated 07.12.2020(Annexure-6) whereby the appeal and revision
presented by the petitioner, were rejected.
iii. Issue a Rule calling upon the respondents and each one of them to
show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof
shall not be issued directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner
in service along with all consequential benefits.
iv. Call for the records appertaining to this petition;
v. After hearing the parties be pleased to make the Rule absolute in
terms of Prayer i, ii, iii and above;
vi. Costs of and incidental to this proceeding;
vii. Any other relief(s) as to this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper;"
2. Heard Mr. A. Bhaumik, learned counsel assisted by
Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as
Mr.Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
3. Mr. A. Bhaumik, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner has sufficient cause to
overstay his leave as because the wife of the petitioner was
suffering from a serious illness at that time. The appellate
authority also found the said statement of the petitioner to be
correct. It is evident that the department proceeding was without
jurisdiction and the inquiry authority most illegally and unlawfully
held the petitioner guilty of the charge without concluding as to
whether there was sufficient cause for his overstay.
4. Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents has argued that in the light of the
Judgment of this Court passed in WA No.79 of 2020 titled as
06020475 RFN(GD) Fulkumar Sarkar Vs. The State of
Tripura and ors., the Tripura State Rifles Act, 1983 under Rule 11
dealing with less heinous offences, need not be punished with one
years imprisonment or fine or with both. But the officers in the
interest of the Department can deal with the matter and by way of
disciplinary proceeding punishment can be imposed depending on
the facts and circumstances of the case. Also the punishment
under Rule 12 of Tripura State Rifles Act, 1983 can be sustained in
this present matter.
5. Heard both sides and perused the evidence on record.
6. Here the allegation against the petitioner is that he
had gone on leave and overstayed without obtaining any proper
permission from the concerned authority and this Court feels that
the this falls under Rule 11(m) of the Tripura State Rifles Act,
1983, and for which the punishment is up to one-year
imprisonment or fine or with both.
7. A fair reading of the impugned proceeding issued in
the Article and as well as in the order passed by the Appellate
Authority reveals that same do not deal with the exemption of Rule
11 of Tripura State Rifles Act, 1983 i.e., punishment under less
heinous offences and also the procedure adopted in the light of the
Judgment passed by this Court in Fulkumar Sarkar(supra) as
pointed out by Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents. The service of the petitioner was
put to an end by way of permanent retirement.
8. Since the same is silent, in the impugned proceeding,
this Court feels that the impugned order passed herein is a non-
speaking order to the effect what the respondent-counsel has
argued, and it reflects upon the respondent authorities for not
considering the Rule 11 of Tripura State Rifles Act, 1983.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order and the order in the
appeal are set aside and the matter is remanded back for fresh
consideration to the original authority to pass a speaking order in
this aspect considering Rule 11 of The Tripura State Rifles Act,
1983 and also the Judgment passed by this Court in Fulkumar
Sarkar(supra). However, till the matter is decided, the petitioner
shall not be in service.
10. It is needless to observe that the order passed by this
Court confines only to the extent that the concerned authorities
need to pass a speaking order on the discussion made above but
not otherwise by again reopening a departmental inquiry.
11. With the above observation and direction, this present
writ petition stands disposed of. Stay if any stands vacated.
Pending application(s), if any also stands closed.
JUDGE
suhanjit
RAJKUMAR Digitally signed by
RAJKUMAR SUHANJIT
SUHANJIT SINGHA
Date: 2023.10.10
SINGHA 12:59:33 +05'30'
