The State Of Tripura vs .
2025 Latest Caselaw 372 Tri

Tripura High Court

The State Of Tripura vs . on 21 January, 2025

Author: T. Amarnath Goud

Bench: T. Amarnath Goud

                                   Page 1 of 3




                  HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                        AGARTALA
                      WA NO.2 OF 2025
 The State of Tripura
 Vs.
 Surasen Tripura.

          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT

 Present:
 For the Appellant(s)              : Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. G.A.

 For the Respondent(s)             : None.

21.01.2025

Order

This present appeal has been preferred against the

impugned Judgment and Order (Oral) dated 06.09.2024,

passed in WP(C) No.548 of 2023 by the learned Single Judge.

2. The brief facts of this case are that the

petitioner/respondent herein, while performing his duties as

the Officer-in-Charge of the Munguiakami Police Station,

detained a suspected vehicle carrying contraband narcotic

goods. The suspected vehicle was later brought to the police

station, where an artificially built secret cabin was opened in

the presence of the SDPO, Teliamura, and contraband articles

were found. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued

against the petitioner/respondent, and disciplinary proceedings

were initiated. Finally, the disciplinary authority held the

petitioner guilty of committing misconduct and imposed the

penalty of 'withholding of one-time scale increment of pay

without cumulative effect.'

3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner/respondent

preferred a writ petition, and the learned writ court passed the

impugned Judgment & Order dated 06.09.2024, setting aside

the penalty order passed by the disciplinary authority. Hence,

this appeal.

4. Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for

the State-respondent, submits that the Officer-in-Charge did

not inform the SDPO about the seizure of the vehicle with

contraband items. The SDPO came to know about the seizure

in the evening, whereas the vehicle was seized in the morning.

5. Heard on merit and perused the evidence on

record.

6. It is apparent from the record that the Sub-

Divisional Police Officer (SDPO) was present when the

contraband items were seized. However, during his cross-

examination, the SDPO stated that he only learned about the

vehicle being detained at the police station through his source.

This creates some confusion about the actual sequence of

events and raises questions about the accuracy of his

statements.

7. This Court believes that such disputes over facts,

especially those related to the evidence and the officer's role,

cannot be properly examined in a writ petition filed under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The purpose of Article

226 is mainly to protect fundamental rights and address legal

violations, not to resolve complicated factual disputes that

require detailed investigation and examination of evidence. In

view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that disputed

questions of fact leading to the evidentiary value cannot be

gone into in a petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution. Accordingly, this present writ petition stands

dismissed.

8. As a sequel, any stay, if granted, stands vacated.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand closed.

                                    B. PALIT, J               T. AMARNATH GOUD, J




   suhanjit

RAJKUMAR      RAJKUMAR SUHANJIT
SUHANJIT      SINGHA
              Date: 2025.01.24
SINGHA        12:36:24 +05'30'