Tripura High Court
State Of Tripura vs Sri Pintu Das on 2 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA No.108 of 2023
1. State of Tripura,
represented by the Principal Secretary,
General Administration (AR) Department,
Government of Tripura, New Capital
Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, PS-New Capital
Complex, Agartala, District-West Tripura.
2. Principal Secretary,
General Administration (AR) Department,
Government of Tripura, New Capital
Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, PS-New Capital
Complex, Agartala, District-West Tripura
(Disciplinary Authority).
3. Chief Secretary,
Government of Tripura, New Capital
Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, PS- New Capital
Complex, Agartala, District-West Tripura
(Appellate Authority)
4. District Magistrate & Collector,
West Tripura, Agartala.
5. Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Sadar, District-West Tripura.
6. Commissioner of Department Enquiries,
Secretariat Annexe, Pandit Nehru Complex,
P.O. Kunjaban, Agartala, District-West
Tripura.
......... Appellant(s)
-Versus-
1. Sri Pintu Das,
son of late Jagabandhu Das, aged about 52
years, resident of Gandhighat, P.S. West
Agartala, P.O. & Sub-Division- Agartala,
District- West Tripura
2. Tripura Public Service Commission,
represented by its Secretary, A.K. Road,
Near Fire Service Chowmohani, P.S. West
Agartala, District-West Tripura, Pin-799001
Page 2 of 8
3. The Secretary,
Tripura Public Service Commission,
A.K. Road, Near Fire Service Chowmohani,
PS-West Agartala, District-West Tripura,
Pin-799001
....... Respondent(s)
For the Appellant (s) : Mr. D. Sarma, Addl. GA
For the Respondent (s) : Mr. S. Lodh, Adv.
Mr. R. Datta, Adv.
Date of hearing & delivery : 02.04.2024
of Judgment & order
YES NO
Whether fit for reporting : √
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. D. Sarma, learned Addl. GA appearing for the
appellants-State as well as Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the writ
petitioner-respondent and Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the TPSC-
respondents.
[2] The appellants-State is aggrieved by the judgment dated 7th January,
2023 passed by the learned Writ Court in W.P.(C) No.835 of 2021, whereby the
writ petition was allowed with the following directions :
(i) The Articles of Charges framed under Charge No.V is set aside;
(ii) The penalty of withholding 3 (three) increments with cumulative effect is
modified and reduced to the extent of withholding 1(one) increment with
cumulative effect, which is treated to be a major penalty;
(iii) The petitioner is entitled to full pay and allowances for the period he
remained under suspension.
[3] The disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the writ petitioner
while he was posted as Deputy Collector & Magistrate in the office of the SDM,
Sadar, Agartala, West Tripura. Vide memorandum of charges dated 26th April,
2024 [Annexure-7 to the writ petition] there were 5[five] article of charges
supported by statement of imputations of misconduct/misbehaviour. He was also
placed under suspension on 27th November, 2013. After participation in the
inquiry proceedings, report was submitted by the inquiring officer on 14th June,
2019. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice and proposed penalty
vide memorandum dated 20th August, 2020 [Annexure-11 to the writ petition].
Out of the five articles of charges, only Charges No.IV & V were proved against
the writ petitioner. The disciplinary authority while issuing second show cause
notice, proposed to impose a major penalty of withholding of 3[three]
increments with cumulative effect upon the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner
submitted his written representation against the second show cause notice
containing the proposed penalty. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority imposed
major penalty withholding of 3[three] increments with cumulative effect vide
order dated 15th February, 2021 [Annexure-16 to the writ petition]. The writ
petitioner preferred an appeal which was also dismissed by the order dated 6th
September, 2021 [Annexure-18 to the writ petition] passed by the Chief
Secretary-cum-Appellate Authority. The writ petitioner being aggrieved
approached the Writ Court.
[4] The learned Writ Court was of the opinion that the Charge No.III
had a direct link with Charge No.V and since the Charge of
forging/manipulating of the EPIC Card of the lady namely, Smt. Nita Das for his
personal interest had not been proved, the findings of guilt as regards the Charge
No. V, the petitioner committed misconduct staying in a hotel at Kolkata with
Smt. Nita Das by way of forging her EPIC Card for his personal interest is
perverse being based on no evidence. However, the learned Writ Court did not
find any perversity in the finding of the inquiry officer so far as Charge No.IV is
concerned. The learned Writ Court however upheld the findings of Charge
No.IV in the following manner:
9. Next, criticizing the findings of guilt as regards the Charge No.IV, Mr. Lodh,
learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the owner of the
vehicle himself appeared and adduced evidence that he received the bill to the
tune of Rs.21,600/- (Rupees twenty one thousand six hundred) only for hiring
his vehicle by the department. In this situation, question arises as to why the
petitioner knowing fully-well that Sri Subhajit Parial had no authority to raise
the bill on behalf of the owner of the vehicle, who styled himself as the driver of
the vehicle, had certified 25 nos. of vouchers amounting to Rs.21,600/- only
being the hiring charges of the vehicle on different occasions. It was within the
full knowledge of the petitioner that Sri Shubhajit Parial at the relevant point
of time was working as Data Entry Operator in his own office, i.e., Office of the
DCM, Sadar. In view of this, the findings of the Disciplinary Authority as well
as the Appellate Authority that the petitioner had an unholy alliance with
Subhajit Parial, Data Entry Operator cannot be said to be perverse finding and
hence, does not call for interference.
[5] The learned Writ Court thereafter proceeded to examine whether
the penalty of withholding of 3[three] increments with cumulative effect under
Rule 11 was proper or not in terms of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It was also held
that withholding of increments of pay and allowances with cumulative effect
would not be treated as minor penalty, but a major penalty as it would reduce the
pay scale of an employee to a lower stage in the time scale of pay permanently
effecting the employee's ultimate salary and allowances. Withholding of
increments of pay with cumulative effect is not enumerated under any of the
minor or major penalties under Rule 11 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. The learned
Writ Court further examined as to whether the writ petitioner is entitled to full
salary and allowances for the period remain under suspension. Relying upon FR-
54B, the learned Writ Court observed that the competent authority is under
obligation to deal with the suspension period as to how the suspension period
has to be treated.
[6] In the case at hand, the suspension order was revoked vide order
dated 28th May, 2014 and the order disentitling the writ petitioner from getting
full pay and allowances for the suspension period was passed on 5th May, 2021
along with the impugned order of penalty imposed upon the writ petitioner. As
such, the order passed by the respondents disqualifying the writ petitioner from
the benefit of full pay and allowances for the period of suspension was held as
inconsistent with the settled law and liable to be interfered with. The learned
Writ Court also took into consideration the submission of the writ petitioner that
withholding of 3[three] increments with cumulative effect was disproportionate
to the charges proved against him.
[7] Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the respondents-State
of Tripura is in appeal.
[8] We have heard learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the
relevant materials placed from the pleadings and enclosed documents on record.
It is to be mentioned here that the findings of the learned Writ Court
so far as it relates to Charge No.IV have remain unassailed as the writ petitioner
withdrew the appeal being W.A. No.28 of 2023. Much submission has been
made by the learned counsel for the parties as to whether the findings of the
learned Writ Court on sustainability of Charge No.V are proper in the eye of
law. On one hand, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the
Charge No.V was unsustainable as Charge Nos.I, II & particularly III were not
proved against him. On the part of the appellants-State, it is argued that the
Charge No.V was sustainable independent of the findings under Charge Nos.I, II
& III. However, learned counsel for the State has at the same time also argued
that the learned Writ Court ought not to have interfered with the quantum of
penalty as even if Charge No.V is held to be unsustainable for the time being,
Charge No.IV constitutes a serious misconduct of financial irregularities on
the part of the writ petitioner in his capacity as Drawing and Disbursing Officer
as he certified fake vouchers to the tune of Rs.21,600/-. Findings on Charge
No.IV were enough to sustain the penalty of withholding of 3[three] interments
with cumulative effect. It is further submitted that if the learned Writ Court was
persuaded by the arguments that the quantum of penalty was harsh or
disproportionate, the matter could at best be remanded to the Disciplinary
Authority to take a fresh decision in accordance with law. However, the Writ
Court had committed error by substituting the quantum of penalty of
withholding of 1[one] increment with cumulative effect which is to be treated as
a major penalty. Therefore, on both counts, the impugned judgment is fit to be
set aside.
[9] We have considered the submission for the learned counsel
appearing for the parties and also examined the grounds urged. The Charge
No.III related to misuse of official position and preparation of EPIC Card by the
writ petitioner by manipulation with mala fide intention. This EPIC Card related
to one Smt. Nita Das in respect of whom the Charge Nos.I & II were also
framed. However, the inquiry officer found all the Charge Nos.I,II & III not
proved. Charge No.V related to misrepresentation of facts regarding writ
petitioner's stay at Kolkata with one lady namely, Smt. Nita Das, wife of Sri
Manik Lal Das and misrepresentation in his defence to the District Magistrate
and Collector, West Tripura. While dealing with Charge No.V, the learned Writ
Court was of the opinion that since Charge No.III had a direct link with Charge
No.V and since the charge of forging/manipulation of EPIC Card of the lady
namely, Smt. Nita Das for his personal interest had not been proved, the findings
of guilt as regards of Charge No.IV that the writ petitioner committed
misconduct staying in a hotel at Kolkata with Smt. Nita Das by way of forging
her EPIC Card for his personal interest was based on no evidence. Since the
learned Writ Court after due consideration of the allegations made in respect of
Charge Nos.I, II & III vis-a-vis the Charge No.V have found that the allegation
of manipulation of EPIC Card of the lady by the writ petitioner had not been
proved, the Charge No.V relating to his stay in hotel at Kolkata with Smt. Nita
Das by way of forging her EPIC Card was based on no evidence.
[10] We do not intend to interfere on these findings of fact by the
learned Writ Court. However, we find that the learned Writ Court has held that
the imposition of penalty of withholding of 3[three] increments with cumulative
effect is disproportionate to the charges proved against him and proceeded to
impose a penalty of withholding of 1[one] increment with cumulative effect
which is to be treated as a major penalty.
[11] The Charge No.IV related to financial irregularities by the writ
petitioner of certifying false vouchers in respect of a vehicle used in the office of
the SDM, Sadar in his capacity as a Drawing and Disbursing Officer. This
charge is of serious financial irregularities. We however find that under Rule 11
of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 the learned Writ Court has referred to the penalties
proposed under Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 where withholding of
increments of pay is a minor penalty. Withholding of increments with
cumulative effect has not specifically been enumerated under any of the minor
or major penalties. Imposition of withholding of three increments with
cumulative effect amounted to a major penalty [See Kulwant Singh Gill Vs.
State of Punjab, (1991) Supp (1) SCC 504]. In that case, the right course for the
learned Writ Court would have been to remit the matter to the Disciplinary
Authority to pass a fresh order on the quantum of penalty considering the gravity
of the charges established against the writ petitioner. The learned Writ Court
however, proceeded to substitute the penalty by withholding of 1[one] increment
with cumulative effect which is to be treated as a major penalty. We, therefore,
are inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order to that extent.
The matter is, therefore, remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh
order on the quantum of penalty to be imposed upon the writ petitioner for the
established charge. The Disciplinary Authority would take such a decision
within a period of 12[twelve] weeks from the receipt of the copy of this
judgment and order.
Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed to the extent as indicated
above.
Pending application (s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(S.D. PURKAYASTHA), J (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
SATABDI Digitally signed by SATABDI
DUTTA
DUTTA Date: 2024.04.18 12:35:18
+05'30'
Sujay
