Tripura High Court
Sri Nandan Pal vs The State Of Tripura And 2 Ors on 11 September, 2024
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 433 of 2023
Sri Nandan Pal
---Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura and 2 Ors.
---Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Somik Deb, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. P. Chakraborty, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. GA.
Date of hearing and date of
judgment and order : 11.09.2024
Whether fit for reporting : No
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
Judgment & Order (Oral)
Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel assisted by Mr. P. Chakraborty,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also heard Mr. M. Debbarma, learned
Addl. GA appearing for the respondents.
[2] This is a petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking
the following relief(s):
(i) Issue 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 for directing the respondents, to transmit the
records, lying with them, for rendering substantive and conscionable
justice to the petitioner, and for quashing/setting aside the impugned
Memorandum dated 10.03.2021 (Annexure-19 supra);
(ii) Issue 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 for mandating/directing the respondents, to
forthwith revoke/rescind the impugned Memorandum dated 10.03.2021
(Annexure-19 supra), and thereupon, release the salary & allowances,
payable to the petitioner, for the period, with effect from 01.04.2020 to
07.08.2020;
(iii) Call for the records appertaining to this petition;
(iv) After hearing the parties, be pleased to make the Rule Absolute in
terms of i. to ii. above;
(v) Any other Relief(s) as to this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and
proper;
[3] It is the case of the petitioner that on 17.01.2020, the petitioner was
transferred from South Tripura Zilla Parishad to Dukli RD Block, with a direction that
he should join his duties, on or before 29.01.2020. On 24.03.2020, the District
Panchayat Officer, South Tripura District issued a Release Order. On 15.04.2020, the
petitioner submitted a representation to the Secretary, South Tripura Zilla Parishad on
15.04.2020. On 18.04.2020, a meeting was held in the conference hall of the Office of
the South Tripura Zilla Parishad with certain Agenda. On 13.05.2020 & 06.06.2020,
the petitioner submitted representations. On 07.08.2020, the petitioner had handed over
the charge to Sri Anish Debnath, Assistant Director of Panchayats on 07.08.2020. On
06.01.2021, this Court passed an Order in WP(C) No.781 of 2020. On 15.01.2021 &
18.02.2021, the petitioner submitted representations. On 23.02.2021, the District
Magistrate & Collector, South Tripura District issued a letter to the Director of
Panchayats, Government of Tripura, inter alia noting the regularization of pay &
allowances of the petitioner. On 10.03.202, the Director of Panchayats, Government of
Tripura issued a Memorandum inter alia alleging that the petitioner did not perform his
official duties with effect from April, 2020 to 7th August, 2020, and such period has
been treated as "dies non", without break in service, no prior Show Cause or any
disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner before treating Dies non.
Hence, this writ petition is presented.
[4] On the contrary, Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. GA appearing for the
respondents has contended before this Court that since the petitioner has been
unauthorizedly absent from duty w.e.f. 01.04.2020 to 07.08.2020, his salary and other
allowances for those day has been stopped. Moreover, according to the respondents,
the petitioner has not worked in South Tripura Zila Parishad Office after date of his
release from 24th March, 2020 and subsequently the absent period of the petitioner has
been treated as 'dies-non' by a memo dated 10th March, 2021.
[5] Having considered the submission as advanced by the learned counsel for
the parties and also having perused the record, this court is of the opinion that the
impugned order 10.03.2021 is not a reasoned order. The respondent before passing
such adverse decision order ought to have given adequate opportunity to the petitioner
to have his say. Therefore, it appears to this court this is a fit case for remanding back
the matter to the respondents for meeting the proper ends of justice. The respondents
are therefore directed to provide adequate opportunity to the petitioner to submit his
grievances in black and white for the period in question. On receipt of such explanation
from the petitioner, the respondents shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law
as expeditiously as possible. In the event, if the explanation,that would be so submitted
by the petitioner is found unsatisfactory, the respondents are at liberty to initiate
disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner.
[6] In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 10.03.2021 is
set aside and this Court remands back the matter to the respondents to pass a reasoned
order after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner.
[7] With the above observation and direction, the petition stands disposed of.
As a sequel, stay, if any, stands vacated. Pending application(s), if any, also stands
closed.
JUDGE
Dipak
