Tripura High Court
Petitioner-In-Person vs Mr. S.S. Dey on 16 January, 2024
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) NO.255 OF 2023
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Present:
For the Petitioner(s) : Petitioner-in-Person.
Mr. C.S. Sinha, Advocate.
Mr. D.C. Saha, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Dey, Advocate General.
Mr. B.N. Majumder, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. B. Paul, Advocate.
Ms. A. Chakraborty, Advocate.
16.01.2024
Order
Heard petitioner-in-person as well as Mr. S.S. Dey,
learned Advocate General assisted by Ms. A. Chakraborty, learned
counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Mr. B.N.
Majumder, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. B. Paul, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent-High Court.
It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed
in the Judicial Service of the State of Tripura on 25th November
2020. Thereafter, to his surprise, his service was discharged by an
order passed by this Court on 27th December 2022. One of the
allegations for his discharge from service is that the Hon'ble
Minister of State for Social Welfare and Social Justice and
Empowerment, Government of India has written a recommendation
letter for his transfer addressed to the Registrar General of the
High Court of Tripura dated 14.06.2022. The petitioner-in-person
contents that the impugned order dated 27.12.2022 which
indicates that his integrity and services as a Judicial Officer is
doubted creates a stigma. The said discharge order has been
passed without conducting inquiry and giving him opportunity and
accordingly, the said order is liable to be set aside. In addition to
this, he also draws the attention of this Court to the proceeding of
the District Judge which indicates that the House Rent
Allowance(HRA) of Rs.23,500/- which was drawn by the petitioner
was reduced to Rs.12,128/-.
Aggrieved by the said proceedings and also drawing
the attention of this Court towards the decision of the Full Court
which turned into a final order of termination of discharging him
from service, the petitioner has challenged the same.
The petitioner-in-person while making his
submission, in support of his argument, has relied upon the
Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited in 1984 AIR 636
titled as Anoop Jaiswal Vs. Government of India and Anr,
[2012] 9 SCR 1141 titled as Pradip Kumar Vs. Union of India
and ors., and another Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment numbered
as Civil Appeal Nos.7841-7842 of 2012 titled as State Bank of
India and ors. Vs. Palak Modi and anr.
Stating thus, the petitioner-in-person prays before
this Court that the impugned orders are hit by the Principle of
Natural Justice, and since no inquiry was conducted as
contemplated under Article 311 of the Constitution of India, the
present writ petition needs to be allowed with all benefits by setting
aside the impugned proceedings.
On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Dey, learned Advocate
General appearing for the State contents before this Court that the
petitioner is not entitled to any relief and Rule 15 of the Judicial
Service Rules, empowers the authority to discharge the petitioner
from service. Learned Advocate General further submits that it is
not a case of misconduct as contemplated and no inquiry needs to
be called for. Learned Advocate General further submits that only
24% of the basic pay is the HRA that an employee is supposed to
draw and if that is the case, Rs.27,000/- and odd was the basic
salary of the petitioner. Then the HRA would amount to around
Rs.6,480/- to which the petitioner is entitled, whereas, in the
present case, the petitioner was drawing around Rs.23,000/- as
HRA which is not permissible.
The learned Advocate General to strengthen his
argument has relied upon paras-13, 14, 16, 19 and 24 of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment cited in AIR 2020 SC 2811
titled as Rajasthan High Court Vs. Ved Priya and anr..
Mr. B.N. Majumder, learned Sr. counsel appearing for
the respondent-High Court submits before this Court that the
impugned order(s) cannot be set aside as the same is legally
sustainable. Learned Sr. counsel prays that the writ petition be
dismissed in limine as the petitioner did not perform his services as
a Judicial Officer to the satisfaction of the appointing authority and
under Rule 15 of the Judicial Service Rule and thus the State and
the concerned authority are entitled to discontinue his services. Mr.
B.N. Majumder, learned Sr. counsel further draws the attention of
this Court to the Order dated 17th June, 2019 indicating that the
Officer by virtue of his transfer is entitled to claim the actual i.e.,
100 % of the HRA which is rental allowance to the satisfaction of
the Unit Head i.e., District Judge or the Administrative Head and
prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.
Mr. B.N. Majumder, learned Sr. counsel while making
his argument has also relied upon Rajasthan High Court Vs. Ved
Priya(supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment cited in 2010
AIR SCW 6007 titled as Khazia Mohammed Muzammil Vs.
State of Karnataka and anr., and another Hon'ble Supreme
Court Judgment cited in AIR 2011 SCW 1874 titled as Rajesh
Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Arguments heard.
Judgment Reserved.
B. PALIT, J T. AMARNATH GOUD, J
suhanjit
RAJKUMAR Digitally signed by
RAJKUMAR SUHANJIT
SUHANJIT SINGHA
Date: 2024.01.18
SINGHA 15:52:15 +05'30'
