[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
Shri Tarun Debbarma vs The State Of Tripura on 12 December, 2025
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.439 of 2025
Shri Tarun Debbarma, TCS-SSG,
S/o- Lt. Hakim Debbarma,
Resident of- Nandan Nagar, Opposite Auxilium Girls School, P.O.-
Bankumari, P.S.- New Capital Complex, Agartala, District- West Tripura,
Pin- 799006.
........Petitioner(s)
-Versus-
1. The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Tripura,
Secretariat, New Capital Complex, Kunjaban, P.O.- Agartala, Secretariat
S.O., P.S.- New Capital Complex, Agartala, Tripura (West District),
799010.
2. The Chief Secretary (Appellate Authority),
Government of Tripura, Secretariat, New Capital Complex, Kunjaban,
P.O.- Agartala Secretariat S.O., P.S.- New Capital Complex, Agartala,
Tripura (West District), 799010.
3. The Special Secretary (Disciplinary Authority),
Department of General Administration (Administrative Reforms),
Government of Tripura, Secretariat, New Capital Complex, Kunjaban,
Room No. 1101 (First Floor), P.O.- Agartala Secretariat S.O., P.S.- New
Capital Complex, Agartala, Tripura (West District), 799010.
4. The Inquiring Authority,
Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Secretariat, New Capital
Complex, Kunjaban, P.O.- Agartala Secretariat S.O., P.S.- New Capital
Complex, Agartala, Tripura (West District), 799010.
........ Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bibhal Nandi Majumder, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Elembrok Debbarma, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Saktimoy Chakraborty, Adv. General.
Mr. Dipankar Sarma, Addl. G.A.
Date of hearing and delivery : 12th December, 2025
of Judgment & Order
Whether fit for reporting : NO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral)
Heard Mr. Bibhal Nandi Majumder, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Saktimoy Chakraborty, learned
Advocate General assisted by Mr. Dipankar Sarma, learned Addl. G.A.
appearing for the State-respondents.
[2] After initiating a departmental proceeding, the following
charges was framed against the petitioner while he was functioning as
the Labour Commissioner, Government of Tripura, Agartala.
"ANNEXURE-I
Statement of Articles of charge framed against Sri Tarun
Debbarma, TCS, SSG, the then Labour Commissioner, Government
of Tripura (now under suspension).
Article-1
Sri Tarun Debbarma, TCS, SSG, while functioning as Labour
Commissioner, personally, unauthorizedly and deliberately took
away file No.F.21(35)-LAB/ENF/CONS/TRAINING/2015 of
Labour Directorate on 6 October,2018 from the office of the
Secretary (Labour) / Principal Secretary holding the charge of
Labour Department even though the file was not marked to him,
but was marked on a sticker to Principal Secretary (Labour) for
discussion with Principal Secretary to Chief Minister, and Sri
Debbarma personally took away the file without permission, and
without recording in the file movement register and behind the
back of the Principal Secretary (Labour). Sri Debbarma then
himself marked the file to Secretary (Labour Board) (Sri
Muktipada Pal, Deputy Labour Commissioner) for issuing work
order. This way, Sri Debbarma actively prevented Principal
Secretary (Labour) to discuss the matter with Principal Secretary
to CM as part of official responsibility and for consideration at the
minister level, and indulged in anarchy with government
documents and Government decisions, and also indulged in
insubordination.
Thus, Sri Debbarma failed to maintain absolute integrity
and devotion to duty, and indulged in dereliction of duty, thereby
violated Rule-3 of the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules,
1988."
"ANNEXURE-I
Statement of Articles of charge framed against Sri Tarun
Debbarma, TCS, SSG, the then Labour Commissioner, Government
of Tripura (now under suspension).
Article-2
Sri Tarun Debbarma while functioning as Labor
Commissioner on 6 October removed the sticker in the note sheet
in the file number 21(35)-LAB/ENF/CONS/TRAINING/2015 of
Labor Directorate after note number 116 with comments
recorded by Principal Secretary to CM, and also struck off the
endorsement made by Principal Secretary (Labor) to Hon'ble
Chief Minister (Labor) in the note-sheet, and instead Sri
Debbarma himself approved the proposal in note sheet, and
directed Secretary Labor Board to issue work order. Sri Debbarma
did all these by taking away the file from the secretariat without
authorization and without consideration at the minister level.
This way, Sri Debbarma indulged in gross manipulation and
falsification of official records.
Thus, Sri Debbarma failed to maintain absolute integrity
and devotion to duty, and indulged in dereliction of duty, thereby
violating Rule 3 of Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988."
"ANNEXURE-I
Statement of Articles of charge framed against Sri Tarun
Debbarma, TCS, SSG, the then Labour Commissioner, Government
of Tripura (now under suspension).
Article-3
Sri Tarun Debbarma while functioning as Labor
Commissioner on 6 October indulged in an act to actively prevent
due scrutiny by higher authorities of his proposal and actions
taken in the Labor Directorate on award of training by Tripura
Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare (TBOCWW)
Board to M/s Indus Integrated Information Management Limited
(IIIML). Instead, Sri Debbarma hurriedly approved at his level on
6 October 2018 the proposal on training involving huge
expenditures, even though the proposal was not marked to him
for taking the decision. This way, Sri Debbarma showed lack of
integrity.
Thus, Sri Debbarma failed to maintain absolute integrity
and devotion to duty, thereby violating Rule 3 of Tripura Civil
Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988."
[3] The Inquiry authority after completion of the enquiry,
submitted its report on 17.10.2022 (Annexure-6 of the writ petition),
holding that prosecution was able to establish and sustain article of
charge fully brought against the AO.
[4] Thereafter, the Disciplinary authority issued an order dated
04.04.2024 (Annexure-7 of the writ petition), based on that enquiry
report imposing minor penalty of withholding of 2(two) increments
without cumulative effect upon the petitioner. On 01.02.2025, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate authority, the Chief
Secretary, Government of Tripura, with a delay of some days in
preferring the appeal. Alongwith the same, a petition for condonation of
delay of 258 days was also filed before the Appellate authority. While
taking into note of both the memo of appeal and the petition for
condonation of delay, the Appellate authority ultimately passed an order
on 19.04.2025 with the following observations and decisions:
"WHEREAS, the said order of penalty was received by the
appellant on 22-04-2024 and the appeal petition submitted by
the appellant after a period of 308 days without raising any
acceptable cause for not preferring the appeal on time;
AND
WHEREAS, after submission of the appeal petition on 01-02-
2025, the appellant later on 17-03-2025 submitted a
condonation of delay after a gap period of 16 days on the
pretence of another pending disciplinary proceeding as the
reason for not preferring the appeal on time, which is again
not a viable cause/ground to consider. The appeal is prima
facie barred by law. The appellant cannot reignite his rights
after sleeping on it for 324 days. The appeal is indeed barred
by limitation.
NOW THEREFORE, in light of the Rule-25 of the CCS(CC&A)
Rules, 1965, the appeal petition of Shri Tarun Debbarma, TCS,
the then Labour Commissioner is not entertainable, hence, the
appeal petition is rejected."
[5] Mr. Nandi Majumder, learned senior counsel submits that
the order passed by the Appellate authority seriously suffers from lack
of reasoning as the petition for condonation of the delay was not
properly dealt with by the Appellate authority and without taking into
consideration the grounds raised in the said petition, in a mechanical
manner both the appeal and the petition for condonation of delay were
disposed of.
[6] Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate General submits that
there was long delay in preferring the appeal without giving any proper
explanation thereof by the petitioner, and therefore, the Appellate
authority was justified in rejecting the appeal.
[7] Court has considered the submissions of both sides and
taken into note of the materials placed in the record. Not only the
Judicial authority but also the Administrative authority dealing with
quasi-judicial matters are also required to give reasons behind their
decision. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.N. Mukherjee vs.
Union of India; (1990) 4 SCC 594, observed that except in cases
where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by
necessary implication, an administrative authority exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions is required to record the reasons for its decision.
[8] On perusal of the order of the Appellate authority, it appears
that no reasoning was given by the said Appellate authority as to why
the petition for condonation of delay was not allowed. The impugned
order suffers from lack of reasoning.
[9] Considering thus, the writ petition is allowed. The order
dated 19.04.2025 passed by the Appellate authority is quashed. The
Appellate authority shall decide the petition for condonation of delay by
passing order with proper reasoning first within 4(four) weeks of receipt
of copy of this order and in case same is allowed, the said authority will
decide the main appeal on merit expeditiously in due course.
With such observations and directions, the writ petition is
disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.
JUDGE
MUNN Digitally signed
by MUNNA SAHA
A SAHA 18:36:05 +05'30'
Date: 2025.12.16
Dinashree
