Tripura High Court
Surasen Tripura vs The State Of Tripura on 6 September, 2024
Author: Arindam Lodh
Bench: Arindam Lodh
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.548 of 2023
Surasen Tripura,
Son of Gajendra Tripura, resident of village-Manya Kumar Para, PO-Raima,
PS-Raishya Bari, District-Dhalai Tripura, Pin-799104.
....Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Tripura, represented by the Commissioner & Secretary to
the Home Department, Government of Tripura, New Secretariat
Complex, Gurkhabasti, Agartala, PO-Kunjaban, PS-New Capital
Complex, Sub-Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura.
2. The Director General of Police, Government of Tripura (Appellate
Authority), Police Headquarters, Akhaura Road, Agartala, District-West
Tripura.
3. The Inspector General of Police (L&O), Tripura (Disciplinary
Authority), Police Headquarters, Akhaura Road, Agartala, District-West
Tripura.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Khowai District, Khowai, Tripura.
5. Sri Rajib Sengupta, the then I/C Additional Superintendent of Police,
Khowai Tripura (Inquiring Authority). Notice may be served through the
Respondent No.2, namely, the Director General of Police, Government of
Tripura.
....Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate
Mr. K. Chakraborty, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. GA
Date of hearing & delivery : 06.09.2024
of judgment & order
Whether fit for reporting : No
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Judgment & Order (Oral)
Heard Mr. K. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. GA appearing for
the respondents-State.
2. The petitioner was the Officer In-charge of Mungiakami Police
Station. While he was discharging his duty on 28.01.2020, he detained a
vehicle and found contraband goods inside the cabin of the vehicle. He
registered a case under Section 20(b)(ii)(c)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985. The
vehicle was brought to the police station where they opened the artificially
built secret cabin and found contraband articles.
3. Thereafter, all on a sudden, a show-cause notice was issued
upon him as to why a departmental proceeding should not be initiated
against him for not informing his higher officer regarding the detention of
the vehicle at the appropriate time. He replied to the show-cause stating inter
alia that he had informed the detention of the vehicle to the higher authority
i.e. the Sub-Divisional Police Officer (for short, SDPO) of the concerned
jurisdiction. He further replied that the SDPO came to the spot and inspected
the vehicle. Furthermore, since it was not possible to break the artificially
built cabin, the vehicle was brought to the Mungiakami Police Station where
the cabin was broken and the contraband articles found therein were seized
in presence of SDPO.
4. Being dissatisfied with the said reply, the disciplinary authority
initiated a proceeding against him. During the proceeding following articles
of charges were framed:
"ARTICLE-I
That the said Shri Surasen Tripura, Inspr. of Police (UB) (Now
under suspension) while functioning as O/C Mungiakami Police Station,
Khowai District Tripura w.e.f. 03-12-2018 to 31-01-2020 (FN) committed
gross misconduct as well as negligence in duty in c/w intimation to this
higher authority regarding detention of a vehicle containing suspected
ganja in its concealed chamber from 7 AM on 28-01-2020 vide MGK PS
case No. 03/2020 dated 28-01-2020 u/s 20(b)(ii) (c)/29 NDPS Act, 1985.
By the above mentioned act of negligence on the part of Shri
Surasen Tripura, Inspr. of Police (UB) and devotion of duty violating the
Rule 3 of Tripura Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1988 which is most
unbecoming of a Government employee.
This is issued vide DGP Tripura approval dated 26-03-2020.
ARTICLE-II
That the said Shri Surasen Tripura Inspr. of Police (UB) while
functioning as O/C MGK PS (Now under suspension) failed to inform his
higher authority viz SDPO, Teliamura, I/C AddI. SP (Khowai) or SP
(Khowai) regarding detention of a vehicle bearing registration Number CG-
98-Z-4566 on NH near Salbagan by his HC namely Pijush Sarkar of MGK
PS (Now also under suspension) while doing vehicle checking, the detained
vehicle was suspected to be loaded with concealed ganja in the chamber of
the vehicle and was stopped by the Head Constable and his team at about
0700 hours on 28-01-2020. It was also alleged that Head Constable Pijush
Sarkar demanded Rs. 10 lakhs from the driver and assistant of the said
vehicle on O/C MGK's direction and he had deployed two SPOs to guard
the said vehicle in civil dress and inform him when the owner comes.
By the above mentioned act of negligence on the part of Shri
Surasen Tripura, Inspr. of Police (UB) and devotion of duty violating the
Rule 3 of Tripura Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1988 which is most
unbecoming of a Government employee.
This is issued vide DGP Tripura approval dated 26-03-2020."
5. Thereafter, an Inquiring Officer was appointed. The petitioner
participated in the proceeding. During the proceeding, the SDPO appeared.
He was cross-examined. During cross-examination and in reply to a specific
question, the SDPO stated that the contraband items were seized in his
presence. The Inquiring Officer submitted his report. After perusal and
analysis of the report, the disciplinary authority held the petitioner guilty of
committing misconduct and imposed penalty of "withholding of one-time
scale increment of pay without cumulative effect". Being aggrieved of such
penalty, the petitioner has approached this Court by means of filing the
instant writ petition.
6. Among other questions raised, one of the important questions
which has been highlighted is that the main allegation levelled against him is
that he did not inform his higher authority about the detention of the vehicle
and seizure has not been proved. It is apparent on the face of the record that
the SDPO was himself present at the time of seizure of the contraband
articles. Even the SDPO has admitted in his cross-examination that he came
to the spot after being informed by the Officer In-charge where the vehicle
was detained.
7. As I have said earlier, I have considered and perused the said
evidence of SDPO. It is settled proposition of law that in exercise of the
power vested upon this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the
writ Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence. However, if it is found that the
evidence considered by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority
is contrary to the statements made by the witnesses and if it appears to be
perverse to the Court, then, in exercise of its discretionary and extraordinary
jurisdiction, the Court can re-appreciate and pass order in accordance with
law.
8. In the instant case, I find that the finding of the disciplinary
authority is totally perverse, which hits the conscience of the Court and thus,
calls for interference by this Court. The main allegation as enumerated in the
articles of charges is that the petitioner did not inform his higher officer, has
not been proved. The evidence is totally otherwise because the SDPO
himself has stated in his cross-examination that he came to the spot where
the vehicle was detained on being informed and on his instruction, the
vehicle was brought to the police station and in his presence the contraband
items were seized.
9. In view of this clear evidence adduced by the SDPO during the
proceeding, the disciplinary authority has committed serious error of facts,
calling for interference by this Court. Accordingly, the findings of the
disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority are interfered with.
10. Resultantly, the impugned order of penalty of "withholding one
time scale increment of pay without cumulative effect" vide order dated
03.09.2021 is set aside and quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to all
benefits as if no penalty was imposed upon him.
The instant writ petition stands allowed and disposed in terms
of the above observation and directions.
JUDGE
Snigdha
SANJAY Digitally signed by
SANJAY GHOSH
GHOSH 15:52:07 +05'30'
Date: 2024.09.07
