Tripura High Court
The State Of Tripura vs Sri Bipul Ranjan De on 28 January, 2025
Page 1 of 21
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.A. No.114/2023
1. The State of Tripura, represented by the Commissioner & Secretary, Home
Department, Government of Tripura having its office at Civil Secretariat
Complex, P.O.-Kunjaban, P.S.-NCC, Sub-Division-Agartala, District-West
Tripura.
2. The Director General of Police, Government of Tripura, having its office at
Fire Brigade Chowmuhani, Agartala, P.O.-Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala, Sub-
Division-Agartala, District-West Tripura.
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (AP & Ops), Tripura State Rifles,
Government of Tripura, having its office at Srinagar, Near TV Tower, P.O. &
P.S.-A.D. Nagar, District-West Tripura.
4. The Commandant, 12th Battalion Tripura State Rifles (IR-VIII) (Disciplinary
Authority), having its office at Chakmaghat, P.O. & P.S.-Teliamura, District-
Khowai Tripura, Pin-799205.
5. The Assistant Commandant, (Inquiry Officer of 12th Bn. TSR (IR-VIII) DP
No.01/19), 12th Battalion Tripura State Rifles (IR-VIII), having its office at
Chakmaghat, P.O. & P.S.-Teliamura, District-Khowai Tripura, Pin-799205.
......... Appellant (s).
VERSUS
1. Sri Bipul Ranjan De, son of Late Ashutosh De, resident of village-
Padmerpar, P.O.-Paitur Bazar, P.S.-Kailashahar, Sub-Division-Kailashahar,
District-Unakoti Tripura, Pin-799279.
2. Sri Kamal Paul, son of Sri Harabandhu Paul, resident of village and P.O.-
Kamal Nagar, P.S.-Sonamura, Sub-Division-Sepahijala, District-Sepahijala
Tripura, Pin-799131.
3. Sri Raju Dhar, son of Late Monoranjan Dhar, resident of Village-Dalura,
P.O.-Khayerpur, P.S.-Budhjungnagar, Sub-Division-Agartala, District-West
Tripura, Pin-799008.
4. Sri Maheswar Das, son of Late Manindra Kumar Das, resident of village-
Uttar Kumarghat, P.O., P.S. & Sub-Division-Kumarghat, District-Unakoti,
Tripura, Pin-799264.
5. Sri Satyabrata Sinha, son of Sri Rabindra Kumar Sinha, resident of village-
R.K. Pur, P.O.-Narendranagar, P.S.-Damchera, District-North Tripura, Pin-
799256.
......... Respondent(s).
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Addl. G.A.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Somik Deb, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Pannalal Debbarma, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. PURKAYASTHA
Date of hearing and judgment: 28th January, 2025.
Whether fit for reporting : YES.
JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)
Heard Mr. Mangal Debbarma, learned Addl. Government
Advocate appearing for the appellants-State and Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior
counsel assisted by Mr. Pannalal Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the
writ petitioners/respondents.
2. The present writ appeal has been preferred by the State being
aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16.05.2023 passed in WP(C)
No.832 of 2021 whereby the learned Writ Court has set aside the order of
dismissal dated 25.11.2019 as upheld in appeal and revision vide orders dated
27.03.2020 and 26.03.2021 respectively and held that the writ petitioners are
entitled to all the consequential benefits.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has at the outset tried
to bring to the notice of this court a development which has occurred after
passing of the impugned judgment on 16.05.2023. The petitioners had been
acquitted of the charges under Sections 452/325/307/380/34 of the IPC vide
judgment dated 20.05.2024 rendered in case No. ST(T-2) 03 of 2021 by the
Court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Khowai, Tripura as the prosecution
had failed to produce evidence to support the charges.
4. The learned Writ Court, however, at the time of passing the
judgment on the basis of the materials and pleadings on record was of the
opinion that rejection of the inquiry report and calling for a fresh inquiry
without proper reasons was not warranted. The learned Writ Court, therefore,
drew an inference that it was an arbitrary exercise of power and hence, the
entire proceedings was conducted in a premeditated manner. Principles of
natural justice was violated. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and
petitioners were held entitled to all the consequential benefits. The respondent-
State being aggrieved by quashing of the order of dismissal has preferred the
instant appeal, inter alia, on a number of grounds.
5. Grounds advanced by Mr. Mangal Debbarma, learned Addl.
Government Advocate appearing for the appellants-State, on which the
conclusion and decision of the learned Writ Court are challenged:
(i) The impugned judgment & order passed by the learned
Single Judge suffers from non-reading of the inter departmental
communication letter dated 27th May, 2019 issued by the IGP(TSR & OPs).
Therefore, impugned judgment & order passed by the learned Single Judge is
illegal, unwarranted, non-est and is liable to be set aside and reversed.
(ii) The learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that inter
departmental communication letter dated 27th May, 2019 was issued by the IGP
(TSR & OPs) with reference to enquiry conducted by the DIG(AP) as per
direction of IGP(TSR) on 20th May, 2019 who submitted his report on 24th
May, 2019. Another preliminary enquiry report was submitted by the
Adjutant/Asstt. Commandant on 17th May, 2019 which was rejected.
Thereafter, a statement was submitted by the Adjutant/Asstt. Commandant on
22nd May, 2019 about his earlier report submitted on 17th May, 2019.
(iii) The learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the
inter departmental communication letter dated 27th May, 2019 issued by the
IGP(TSR & OPs) was in two parts, one is to conduct a fresh enquiry into the
matter detailing an officer other than Adjutant, 12th Bn. TSR against 7
suspended staffs including the 5 accused persons, i.e., the petitioners herein for
assaulting Rfn.(GD) Bhojveer Singh Chouhan and another is to initiate DP
against the 5 suspended FIR named accused persons, i.e., the petitioners herein
for being in unauthorized absence from Bn. HQr after suspension.
(iv) The learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that
accordingly, three departmental proceedings have been initiated against the
petitioners, one is DP No. 01 of 2019 for physical assault on Rfn (GD)
Bhojveer Singh Chouhan against the 7 (seven) AOs including the five
petitioners and the another is DP No. 02 of 2019 for unauthorized absence
against the five petitioners only. Departmental proceedings bearing DP No. 03
of 2019 was related to another incident which happened on Rifleman (GD)
Jagadish Prasad Chawra of 12th Bn. TSR who was physically assaulted on 11th
May, 2019 by Nb/Sub Pradip Roy and five other jawans, namely Nb/Sub Bipul
Ranjan De, Kamal Paul, Raju Dhar, both are Havildar (GD) and two other NK
(GD) namely, Maheswar Das and Satyabrata Sinha under same TSR Battalion.
(v) The learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that if the
inter departmental communication letter dated 27th May, 2019 issued by the
IGP(TSR & OPs) is set aside, in that event the second DP bearing DP No. 02
of 2019 would also be liable to be set aside though 3rd DP is not related with
the inter departmental communication letter dated 27th May, 2019 issued by the
IGP(TSR & OPs).
(vi) The learned Single Judge has also failed to appreciate that
the inter departmental communication letter dated 27th May, 2019 was issued
by the IGP (TSR & OPs) at the very initial stage, just after procuring reports,
communicated to conduct a fresh enquiry on the subject matter declining the
initial preliminary report submitted by the Adjutant and the initiation of
proposed departmental enquiry issued by the Commandant. This inter
departmental communication cannot be said to be purportedly issued as
arbitrary exercise of power by the respondents. It is a communication in
between the inter-departmental authority for referring to unearth the actual
incident of violence within the concerned TSR battalion.
(vii) The learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that based
on the said communication dated 27th May, 2019, another DP bearing No. 02 of
2019 for unauthorized absence against the five petitioners was conducted
following all prescribed procedures and principles of natural justice, concluded
the departmental proceedings on 22nd November, 2019 and awarded minor
penalty of severe censure under the provisions of TSR Act, 1983 and 41 days
unauthorized absence has been treated as Dies-non without break in service
against all five petitioner-respondents herein.
(viii) The learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the Rule
14(5) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, which prescribes that the disciplinary
authority may itself inquire into the charges against the accused Government
servant or appoint an Inquiry officer for the purpose. It is the privilege of the
disciplinary authority to accept the preliminary enquiry report or to reject it if it
appears to be dissatisfactory. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna Chandra
Tandon vs Union of India [AIR 1974 SC 1589] has held that preliminary
enquiry is a inter communication between the officers preliminary to the
holding of enquiry, to find prima facie grounds for holding disciplinary
enquiry. In the judicial review, it is to be checked whether full opportunity was
given to the Petitioner to defend him at every stage or not. If it was given, the
rejection of preliminary enquiry report without showing reason cannot be a
cogent ground for quashing the entire proceedings. Preliminary enquiry report
is not a result of any formal enquiry against the petitioners.
(ix) The learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the
criminal case bearing No. ST (T-2) 03 of 2021 arisen out of TLM PS case No.
23/2019 u/s 307/325/380/34 IPC is also pending for adjudication before the
learned court of Asstt. Session Judge, Khowai Tripura against all the petitioner-
respondents herein.
6. However, when the matter has been argued before us, Mr. Somik
Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Pannalal Debbarma, learned
counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, has sought to defend the impugned
judgment on, inter alia, a novel ground that the writ petitioners faced
departmental proceedings for the same and identical set of charges as that in
the criminal prosecution for the same incidence. That the common set of
witnesses were produced during departmental proceedings and though the
number of witnesses during the criminal proceedings were more but since the
criminal court has passed the order of acquittal on merits, the penalty imposed
upon the petitioners on the same set of charges and evidence should not be
allowed to sustain. It is submitted that the present appeal is a continuation of
the writ proceedings and as such, the hands of this Court are not fettered by the
grounds or reasonings rendered by the learned Writ Court if on ultimate
analysis the impugned judgment can be upheld on the basis of independent
reasoning by this Court. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has relied
upon the judgments rendered by the Apex Court on this issue in the case of
G.M. Tank vrs. State of Gujarat and others reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446 and
in the case of Ram Lal vrs. State of Rajasthan and others reported in (2024) 1
SCC 175 (paragraphs-1 to 8, 12 to 34).
7. It is the case of the writ petitioners that on account of acquittal of
the writ petitioners of the criminal charges, it would be a travesty of justice if
the penalty of dismissal imposed on same set of charges and evidence on the
basis of departmental proceedings is allowed to sustain. Learned senior counsel
for the writ petitioners has laboured to substantiate this proposition by referring
to the charges and the evidence adduced both in the departmental proceedings
and in the criminal trial by the prosecution. It is submitted that in such
circumstances while exercising the powers of judicial review, this Court can
grant redress if it concludes that allowing the findings in the disciplinary
proceedings to stand would be unjust, unfair and oppressive. The Apex Court
has also observed that expressions like "benefit of doubt" and "honourably
acquitted" used in judgments are not to be understood as magic incantations. A
Court of law will not be carried away by the mere use of such terminology. The
Court in judicial review is obliged to examine the substance of the judgment
and not go by the form of expression used. If the judgment of acquittal is
examined in that light by this Court, it would certainly show that the
prosecution has despite adducing a number of witnesses in its favour including
medical witness failed to substantiate the charges. As such, the charges have
been held to be not proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. In such an
event, this Court would be well within its power to uphold the judgment of the
learned Writ Court on independent considerations other than the reasonings
which are persuaded by the learned Writ Court as it is the interest of justice
which is uppermost to be subserved.
8. Mr. Mangal Debbarma, learned Addl. Government Advocate
appearing for the appellants-State, has reiterated the grounds taken in appeal
which have been referred to in some detail hereinabove. However, he submits
that the judgment of acquittal dated 20.05.2024 was rendered after
pronouncement of the impugned judgment by the learned Writ Court.
Therefore, its reasonings are not persuaded by the finding of acquittal rendered
by the Criminal Court.
On being specifically asked, learned counsel for the appellants-
State has not been able to dispel the contention of the writ petitioners that the
criminal prosecution was initiated on the basis of the same incidence by the
complainant and the nature of allegations are same and similar in both the
disciplinary proceedings and the criminal case. Learned counsel for the
appellants-State does not dispute that the learned Criminal Court has rendered a
finding of acquittal as the prosecution had failed to substantiate the charges
despite production of 14 witnesses including the medical witnesses. He has
placed the provisions of the Tripura State Rifles Act, 1983, as amended.
However, there is no provision of review in the Act in case the delinquent
employees are acquitted of same or similar nature of charges by the Criminal
Court. Learned counsel for the State also is not able to countenance the
submission of the writ petitioners that this Court in exercise of powers of
judicial review at this appellate stage can review the findings and the order of
penalty rendered in the departmental proceedings on the basis of the acquittal
of the delinquent employees/writ petitioners in the criminal trial based on same
set of charges and same evidence.
9. In the above conspectus of facts and circumstances and the
grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant and the writ
petitioners/private respondents, we have conferred anxious consideration to the
question at hand as to whether the findings of the learned Writ Court are
vulnerable to be set aside in appeal on independent reasonings by this Court
taking into consideration that the writ petitioners have been acquitted of the
identical charges in the criminal case and on the same set of evidence rather
more adduced by the prosecution during criminal trial. In order to appreciate
the aforesaid issue, we may at the outset refer to the legal position as has been
reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment rendered in the case of Ram
Lal (supra) where the Apex Court had also referred to the decision in the case
of G.M. Tank (supra) relied upon by the writ petitioners. The position in law as
rendered at paragraphs-10 to 12 and 25, 28, 29 and 30 are being extracted
hereunder as they are illuminating for this Court in the facts and circumstances
of the present case:
"10. We have examined both the questions independently. We are
conscious of the fact that a writ court's power to review the order of the
disciplinary authority is very limited. The scope of enquiry is only to examine
whether the decision-making process is legitimate. (See SBI v. A.G.D.
Reddy [SBI v. A.G.D. Reddy, (2023) 14 SCC 391 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC
1064 : 2023 INSC 766] .) As part of that exercise, the courts exercising power
of judicial review are entitled to consider whether the findings of the
disciplinary authority have ignored material evidence and if it so finds, the
courts are not powerless to interfere. (See United Bank of India v. Biswanath
Bhattacharjee [United Bank of India v. Biswanath Bhattacharjee, (2022) 13
SCC 329 : (2023) 2 SCC (L&S) 705 : 2022 INSC 117] .)
11. We are also conscious of the fact that mere acquittal by a
criminal court will not confer on the employee a right to claim any benefit,
including reinstatement. (See State of T.N. v. S. Samuthiram [State of
T.N. v. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 566 : (2013) 1
SCC (L&S) 229] .)
12. However, if the charges in the departmental enquiry and the
criminal court are identical or similar, and if the evidence, witnesses and
circumstances are one and the same, then the matter acquires a different
dimension. If the Court in judicial review concludes that the acquittal in the
criminal proceeding was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence
and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge, the Court in
judicial review can grant redress in certain circumstances. The Court will be
entitled to exercise its discretion and grant relief, if it concludes that allowing
the findings in the disciplinary proceedings to stand will be unjust, unfair and
oppressive. Each case will turn on its own facts. (See G.M. Tank v. State of
Gujarat [G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 5 SCC 446 : 2006 SCC
(L&S) 1121] , State Bank of Hyderabad v. P. Kata Rao [State Bank of
Hyderabad v. P. Kata Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 657 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 489]
and S. Samuthiram [State of T.N. v. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598 :
(2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 566 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 229] .)
*** *** ***
25. With this above background, if we examine the criminal
proceedings the following factual position emerges. The very same witnesses,
who were examined in the departmental enquiry were examined in the
criminal trial. Jagdish Chandra, Bhawani Singh, Shravan Lal, Raj Singh and
Karan Sharma were examined as PW 2, PW 3, PW 6, PW 9 and PW 13
respectively at the criminal trial. Apart from them, eight other witnesses were
also examined. The gravamen of the charge in the criminal case was that the
appellant had submitted an application for recruitment along with his
marksheet and he, by making alteration in his date of birth to reflect the same
as 24-4-1972 in place of 21-4-1974, and obtained recruitment to the post of
Constable.
*** *** ***
28. Expressions like "benefit of doubt" and "honourably
acquitted", used in judgments are not to be understood as magic incantations.
A court of law will not be carried away by the mere use of such terminology.
In the present case, the Appellate Judge has recorded that Ext. P-3, the
original marksheet carries the date of birth as 21-4-1972 and the same has
also been proved by the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. The
conclusion that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full
consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably
failed to prove the charge can only be arrived at after a reading of the
judgment in its entirety. The Court in judicial review is obliged to examine
the substance of the judgment and not go by the form of expression used.
29. We are satisfied that the findings of the Appellate Judge in the
criminal case clearly indicate that the charge against the appellant was not
just, "not proved" -- in fact the charge even stood "disproved" by the very
prosecution evidence. As held by this Court, a fact is said to be "disproved"
when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes that it
does not exist or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man
ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the
supposition that it does not exist. A fact is said to be "not proved" when it is
neither "proved" nor "disproved" (see Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P. [Vijayee
Singh v. State of U.P., (1990) 3 SCC 190 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 378] ).
30. We are additionally satisfied that in the teeth of the finding of
the Appellate Judge, the disciplinary proceedings and the orders passed
thereon cannot be allowed to stand. The charges were not just similar but
identical and the evidence, witnesses and circumstances were all the same.
This is a case where in exercise of our discretion, we quash the orders of the
disciplinary authority and the appellate authority as allowing them to stand
will be unjust, unfair and oppressive. This case is very similar to the situation
that arose in G.M. Tank [G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 5 SCC 446 :
2006 SCC (L&S) 1121] ."
10. In order to appreciate the issue at hand in view of the aforesaid
legal position, the chronology of relevant list of dates and events as are placed
from the pleadings on record leading up to the passing of the judgment in
criminal case [S.T.(T-2) 03 of 2021] dated 20.05.2024 are briefly encapsulated
hereunder:
"Chronological events of facts
17.05.2019:-As directed by the Commandant, 12th Bn TSR, Shri Shyamal
Debbarma, Assistant Commandant had conducted a Preliminary Inquiry, and
recorded statements of witnesses, regarding an alleged physical assault
(alleged to have been occurred on 12.05.2019) upon Rin Bhojveer Singh
Chauhan.
19.05.2019:- On the basis of the Preliminary Inquiry Report and the
statements of witnesses, a Departmental Proceeding vide DP No. 01/2019
was initiated against the writ petitioners.
19.05.2019:- On contemplation thereof, the writ petitioners were placed under
suspension.
20.05.2019:- On the same facts and circumstances of the alleged incident
(which was the subject matter of the Departmental Proceeding), one Shri
Randhir Singh Chauhan (brother of Rfn Bhojveer Singh Chauhan) lodged an
FIR with the Teliamura Police Station vide TLM PS Case No.23/2019, under
Sections 307/325/380/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
15.06.2019:-The said Departmental Proceeding (as initiated vide the
Memorandum dated 19.05.2019) was dropped, but reason thereof was not
mentioned by the Disciplinary Authority. It was only noted that the
Revisional Authority had directed to do so as per an Order dated 27.05.2019.
23.06.2019:- Another Preliminary Inquiry was conducted by Shri Hamsarai
Reang, Assistant Commandant, who submitted his Report to the
Commandant, 12th Bn TSR on 12.06.2019, before the dropping the initial
Departmental Proceeding. On the basis of the said Preliminary Inquiry Report
dated 12.06.2019, a fresh Departmental Proceeding vide DP No. 01/2019 was
initiated, against the writ petitioners.
21.08.2019: During Inquiry proceedings, Shri Ajay Kumar Das, Assistant
Commandant (i.e., the Inquiry Officer) repulsed the request of the writ
petitioners for supply of some important/crucial documents.
20.09.2019:- The writ petitioners submitted a consolidated Statement of
Defence before the Inquiry Officer, denying all the allegations made by the
Prosecution during the Inquiry.
17.10.2019:- Shri Ajay Kumar Das, Assistant Commandant (the Inquiry
Officer), submitted his Inquiry Report before the Commandant, 12th Bn TSR
(i.e., the Disciplinary Authority).
22.10.2019:- Shri Jitendra Debbarma, Commandant, 12th Bn TSR, being the
Disciplinary Authority issued Provisional Punishment Order, for imposing
"Dismissal from service" upon the writ petitioners.
05.11.2019: The writ petitioners submitted Representation, before the
Disciplinary Authority alleging unjust, unfair, non-appreciation of evidence
and lack of opportunities provided during the Inquiry.
25.11.2019:- Shri Jitendra Debbarma, Commandant, 12th Bn TSR, being the
Disciplinary Authority, issued Final Punishment Order, thereby imposing the
punishment of "Dismissal from service" upon the writ petitioners.
12.02.2020:- Being aggrieved by the said Final Punishment Order, issued by
the Commandant, 12th Bn TSR, the writ petitioners had filed a Writ Petition,
marked as WP(C) No. 1385 of 2019, before this High Court. The same was
withdrawn with liberty for availing the alternative remedy of departmental
Appeal.
20.02.2020:- The writ petitioners again prayed before the Commandant, 12th
Bn TSR (i.e., the Disciplinary Authority), for supplying the documents viz.
Preliminary Inquiry Report along with statements recorded during the initial
Preliminary Inquiry conducted by Shri Shyamal Debbarma, Assistant
Commandant on 17.05.2019, but, according to petitioners, the same did not
evoke any response.
09.03.2020: In terms of the liberty so granted, assailing the Final Punishment
Order dated 25.11.2019, the writ petitioners preferred a Departmental Appeal,
before the Appellate Authority, i.e., the Deputy Inspector General of Police
(AP & OPS).
27.03.2020:- The said Appellate Authority rejected the said Appeal, preferred
by the writ petitioners.
27.03.2020: The Commandant, 12th TSR (i.e., the Disciplinary Authority)
rejected the said Prayer dated 20.02.2020, as made by the writ petitioners for
supplying some crucial documents.
15.05.2020:-The writ petitioners had thereafter presented Revision Petition
against the Final Punishment Order dated 25.11.2019 & the Appellate Order
dated 27.03.2020, before the Revisional Authority, against the order of
dismissal from service.
25.06.2020:-The Investigating Officer of Teliamura Police Station FIR No.
23/2019, submitted Charge Sheet u/s 452/325/307/380/34 IPC, against the
writ petitioners, before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khowai, Tripura on
25/06/2020.
22.07.2020:- Since, no response was received from the Revisional Authority
in connection with the said Revision Petition dated 15.05.2020, the writ
petitioners submitted a Prayer, requesting the said Authority, to make an early
decision, in connection with the same.
08.01.2021:- Even then, since no communication was received from the
Revisional Authority, the writ petitioners filed another Writ Petition, marked
as WP(C) No. 830 of 2020, before this High Court. The said case was
disposed of directing the Revisional Authority to dispose the said Revision
Petition, within 3 months.
26.03.2021: The Director General of Police, Government of Tripura issued an
Order, thereby rejecting the Revision Petition, presented by the writ
petitioners.
18.11.2021:- Thereafter, assailing the Final Punishment Order dated
25.11.2019, the Appellate Order dated 27.03.2020 & the Revision Order
dated 26.03.2021, and praying for their reinstatement in service with all
consequential benefits, the writ petitioners filed the Writ Petition, WP(C) No.
832 of 2021, before the Single Bench of this High Court.
16.05.2023:- By a Judgment & Order (Oral), the Single Bench of this Court
allowed the Writ Petition [i.e., WP(C) No. 832 of 2021], thereby quashing/
setting aside all the impugned Orders, and directed grant of all the
consequential benefits to the writ petitioners, within a period of 3 months
from the date of receipt thereof.
29.08.2023:- Feeling aggrieved thereagainst, the State Respondents have
preferred the instant Writ Appeal before this Court.
20.05.2024:- In the connected Criminal Trial, marked as Case No.ST(T-2)03
of 2021, the Ld. Assistant Sessions Judge, Khowai Tripura passed a
Judgement, thereby acquitting the writ petitioners from all the charges."
11. The writ petitioners were proceeded in D.P. No.01/2019 for the
only Article of Charges on the basis of statement of imputation, the gist of
which is indicated hereunder:
"Article-1
That on 12-05-2019 at 2200 hrs No.97020017 Naib Subedar (GD) Bipul
Ranjan De of 'Adm' Coy., No.91010597 Naib Subedar (GD) Pradip Roy of 'Adm' Coy.,
No.97050103 Havildar (GD) Kamal Paul of 'Adm' Coy., No.96030950 Havildar(GD) Raju
Dhar of 'Adm' Coy., No.97040557 Naik(GD) Maheswar Das of 'Adm' Coy. and No.
96030801 Naik(GD) Satyabrata Sinha in connivance with No.01071050 Rfn(GD) Bhusan
Datta of 'A' Coy, all 12th Bn TSR (IR-VIII) uses criminal force, commits an assault, breaks
into the room and damages property of No.06110931 Rfn(GD) Bhojveer Singh Chauhan, 'F'
Coy (now attached with Unit M.I. Room), 12th Bn TSR (IR-VIII) which amounts to gross
misconducts and thereby punishable under Section 12(1) of TSR Act, 1983.
Statement of imputation
That on 12-05-2019 at 2200 hrs No.97020017 Naib Subedar (GD) Bipul
Ranjan De of 'Adm' Coy., No.91010597 Naib Subedar (GD) Pradip Roy of 'Adm' Coy.,
No.97050103 Havildar (GD) Kamal Paul of 'Adm' Coy., No.96030950 Havildar(GD) Raju
Dhar of 'Adm' Coy., No.97040557 Naik(GD) Maheswar Das of 'Adm' Coy. and No.
96030801 Naik(GD) Satyabrata Sinha in connivance with No.01071050 Rfn(GD) Bhusan
Datta of 'A' Coy, all 12th Bn TSR (IR-VIII) uses criminal force, commits an assault, breaks
into the room and damages property of No.06110931 Rfn(GD) Bhojveer Singh Chauhan, 'F'
Coy (now attached with Unit M.I. Room), 12th Bn TSR (IR-VIII). The matter has been
established from the enquiry report dated 15-06-2019 submitted by Shri Hamsarai Reang,
AC, 12th Bn TSR (IR-VIII) which amounts to gross misconducts and thereby punishable
under Section 12(1) of TSR Act, 1983."
12. On the other hand, the writ petitioners faced criminal trial in
ST(T-2)03/21 under Sections 452/325/307/380/34 of the IPC on the charges of
committing illegal trespass into the living barrack of the victim namely Rfn.
Bhojveer Singh Chauhan by breaking the door with common intention,
voluntarily causing grievous hurt upon him and damaging his personal property
and stealing away his mobile phone and wallet. In the departmental
proceedings, the prosecution produced 8(eight) witnesses namely, (i) Shri
Shyamal Debbarma, AC, as PW-1 (PW-8 in the criminal case), (ii) Havildar
Babul Ghosh as PW-2 (PW-11 in the criminal case), (iii) Havildar Purna Kr.
Chakma as PW-3 (PW-7 in the criminal case), (iv) Rifleman Bhojveer Singh
Chauhan, the victim, as PW-4 (PW-3 in the criminal case), (v) EF Tek Bahadur
Silal as PW-5 (CSW-7 of FIR), (vi) EF Ravi Kumar as PW-6 (CSW-8 of FIR),
(vii) EF Shaik Abdul Kader as PW-7 (CSW-13 of FIR), and (viii) Rifleman
Shashi Bhusan Tiwari as PW-8. He did not turn up in the criminal case.
13. In the criminal case, a total of 14(fourteen) witnesses were
examined, including the 7(seven) out of 8 (eight) named above, who are as
follows:
(i) PW-1-Shri Pradip Deb;
(ii) PW-2-Shri Nihar Debbarma;
(iii) PW-3-Shri Bhojveer Singh Chauhan;
(iv) PW-4-Shri Randheer Singh Chauhan;
(v) PW-5-Shri Sumanta Chakma;
(vi) PW-6- Dr. Bindiya Debbarma;
(vii) PW-7-Shri Purna Kumar Chakma;
(viii) PW-8-Shri Shyamal Debbarma;
(ix) PW-9-Dr. Rakesh Majumder;
(x) PW-10-Shri Laxmanjoy Reang;
(xi) PW-11-Shri Babul Ghosh;
(xii) PW-12-Shri Rati Ranjan Debnath;
(xiii) PW-13-Shri Sumanta Bhattacharjee; &
(xiv) PW-14-Dr. Ashim Dey.
The following exhibits were adduced on behalf of the prosecution:
(i) Exbt.1: Signature of PW 1 in the seizure list
dated 21.05.2019.
(ii) Exbt.2: Signature of PW 2 in the seizure list
dated 21.05.2019.
(iii) Exbt.3: Signature of PW 3 in the seizure list.
(iv) Exbt.4: Signature of PW 4 in the written FIR.
(v) Exbt.5: Signature of PW 5 in the seizure list
dated 12.08.2019.
(vi) Exbt.6(as a whole):Injury report of the victim prepared by
PW 6.
(vii) Exbt.7(as a whole):Another injury report of the victim
prepared by PW 6.
(viii) Exbts.6/1 to 6/4:Signatures of PW 6 in the injury report.
(ix) Exbts.7/1 to 7/4:Signatures of PW 6 in the injury report.
(x) Exbt.8(as a whole):Injury report of the victim dated
01.06.2019 prepared by PW 9.
(xi) Exbt.8/1: Signature of PW 9 in the injury report.
(xii) Exbts.9, 10 and 11: Hand sketch maps with separate indexes
of three different P.O.s prepared by PW 13.
(xiii) Exbt.12:Seizure list dated 21.05.2019 prepared by PW 13.
(xiv) Exbt.13: Another seizure list dated 21.05.2019 prepared
by PW 13.
(xv) Exbt.14: Final medical report of the victim prepared by the
medical board including PW 14.
(xvi) Exbts.14/1: Signatures of PW 14 in the final medical report.
(xvii) Exbt.11: Injury report of Smti. Gita Debnath prepared by
PW 13.
(xviii) Exbts.11/1 & 11/2:Signatures of PW 13 in the injury report.
14. The learned trial Court had after discussion on the evidence on
record rendered the following findings and conclusion:
"14. From the evidence of the victim cum PW-3 it appears that on
12.05.2019 at about 10 pm, the accused persons namely Bipul Dey, Raju
Dhar, Kamal Paul, Maheshwar Das and Satyabrata Singha made attack upon
him. According to the PW-3 the accused persons dragged him to a certain
distance and assaulted him. As a result of this assault he became unconscious
and he regained his sense in Medical Inspection Room. PW-3 further deposed
that on the following day he was taken to Teliamura Hospital by havildar
Purna Chakma. But in his deposition the havildar Purna Chakma deposed that
on the alleged night of incident PW-3 came to his room and informed that he
was assaulted by some persons. But at that time the victim did not disclose
the names of the accused persons. It appears that at the alleged time of
incident the victim and the accused persons were posted in the camp of 12th
Bn TSR, Chakmaghat. But it is not clear to this court why the victim did not
disclose the names of the accused persons to his colleague Purna Chakma,
soon after the alleged incident. It also appears that the victim did not inform
the adjutant of 12th Bn TSR or the attending doctor of Teliamura Hospital
about the alleged incident of assault on 13.05.2019. It is apparent from the
evidence on record that on the following day of the alleged incident, the
victim went to Teliamura but on that day the victim did not file any FIR
against the accused persons. It also appears that before 20.05.2019, no TSR
official had filed an FIR against the accused persons. PW-4 was not the eye
witness of the alleged incident. At the time of deposition PW4 stated that,
after the alleged incident the victim sent one video about the alleged incident
to him. But during cross examination PW-4 admitted that he did not hand
over the video to the police while he visited police station for lodging of FIR.
PW-4 also stated that he had not stated this fact to the IO and he did not
mention this fact in his FIR. In present case, one plastic pipe, one iron rod,
one wooden piece, one bamboo stick, one black colour trunk and one small
lock were seized by the IO on 21.05.2019 from 12th Bn TSR headquarter
complex. But the seizure witnesses in their cross examination stated that the
IO did not put any special identification mark in the seized articles. They
added that they did not put their signatures in the seized articles. It is not clear
to this court whether the seized plastic pipe, iron rod or bamboo stick were
used in assaulting the victim or not. In his deposition the victims stated that,
as a result of the assault of the accused persons he became unconscious and
he regain his sense in Medical Inspection Room. It is apparent from the
evidence on record that the records in relation to any kind of treatment in
Medical Inspection room or sending a patient to hospital through MI room is
maintained by the in-charge of Medical Inspection room. But there is nothing
in the evidence on record to show that the documents related with the
treatment of the victim on 12.05.2019 in Medical Inspection room was
handed over to the police by the In charge of Medical Inspection room of 12th
Bn TSR. At the time of deposition PW-3 stated that he had stated to the IO
that on the alleged night of incident the accused Satyabrata Singha entered
into his room and broke the electric bulb. PW-3 also deposed that, he had
stated to the IO that the accused persons dragged him to a certain distance and
hit him in his head with a Lathi and because of which he lost his sense and
fell down on the ground. Thereafter he regained his sense in Medical
Inspection room. But during cross examination, PW-13 cum IO admitted that
the victim did not state the aforesaid statement to him. So if the version of
PW-13 is likely to be believed than the version of PW-3 becomes doubtful.
Apart from this, the injury report marked as Exbt.6/1 contradicts the aforesaid
version of the victim in relation to his injuries. The version of PW-3 is not
free from major contradiction.
15. From the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 it appears that in the
month of May 2019, they were posted in the camp of 12th BN TSR at
Chakmaghat. PW-10 was a TSR Personnel and on the alleged night of
incident he was admitted as a patient in the Hospital of 12th BN TSR at
Chakmaghat. But they did not say anything incriminating against the accused
persons. From the evidence of PW-11 it appears that on 13.05.2019 he was
posted in the camp of 12th BN TSR at Chakmaghat. In the morning he came
to know the Bhojveer Singh Chouhan fell sick accordingly he made a report.
But he did not say anything incriminating against the accused persons. From
the evidence of PW-8 it appears that in the morning of 13.05.2019 he came to
know the victim Bhojveer Singh Chouhan fell sick and he made necessary
arrangement of shifting of the victim to Teliamura SD Hospital. PW-8 also
admitted that he did not see any incident of scuffling in the TSR Camp on the
alleged night of incident. It is apparent from the evidence on record that there
are many barrack rooms available in TSR Camp of 12th BN TSR at
Chakmaghat. Many TSR personnel were posted in the said camp. But the
prosecution side could not produce any independent witness who had seen
that the accused persons in furtherance of there common intention on
12.05.2019 at about 10 pm had entered in the room of the victim with an
intent to kill him and caused grievous hurt to the victim namely Bhojveer
Singh Chouhan.
16. Section 380 of IPC relates to an aggravated form of theft that
is, theft in a dwelling house, tent or vessel. In present case the prosecution
side has examined 14 witnesses. But no witness had stated that the accused
persons had committed theft of any article of Bhojveer Singh Chouhan from
the living barrack of TSR Camp.
17. On perusal of the FIR it appears that the alleged incident
occurred in the night of 12.05.2019. But the FIR was lodged on 20.05.2019.
The reasons for delay in lodging the FIR, was not mentioned in the printed
form of FIR. Ld Defence counsel strongly argued that delay in lodging the
FIR is fatal in this case and that can be ignored. In the case of Ram Chandra
Das @ Ramu VS. State of Tripura reported in (2014) 1 TRIPURA LAW
REPORTS 503, Hon'ble High Court of Tripura was pleased enough to
observe that "the object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR is to
obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was
committed. Delay in lodging FIR quite often results the embellishment,
exaggeration and afterthought. Because of delay, the report not only gets
bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, but also danger creeps in with the
introduction of coloured version, exaggerated version or concocted story."
From the evidence on record, it appears that in present case the prosecution
side could not give a satisfactory and plausible explanation of delay in
lodging the FIR.
18. Accordingly in view of the grounds mentioned in above it is
apparent that there are several lacunae in prosecution story which are not
explain and cast serious doubt on the prosecution story rendering it not
worthy of belief.
19. Under the above facts and circumstances, I found that the
prosecution side has failed to establish the charges leveled against the accused
persons beyond reasonable shadow of doubt and as such the accused persons
are fit to be acquitted of this case. Hence, the points for determination are also
answered in the negative against the prosecution.
DECISION
20. Considering the evidence on record and also after hearing the
arguments of both the sides, I hold that the prosecution side has failed to
prove the case beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts and hence the
present case is decided in favour of the defence.
21. In the result, the accused persons namely Bipul Ranjan Dey,
Raju Dhar, Kamal Paul, Maheshwar Das and Satyabrata Singha are acquitted
of the charges of the offence as punishable u/s 452/325/307/380/34 of IPC as
leveled against them in connection with this case and they are set at liberty.
22. Their surety is also discharged from the liability of his bail
bond.
23. The seized articles, if any, be disposed of as per law after the
expiry of period of limitation or period of appeal or revision.
24. This case is thus disposed of on contest.
25. The aggrieved party may prefer appeal against this judgment
before the next appellate court.
26. Enter the result in the relevant trial register.
27. Given under the hand and seal of this court on this 22nd day of
May, 2024."
15. After a careful analysis of the charges in departmental proceedings
and in the criminal case, it is but evident that the delinquents were proceeded
on identical charges in both the departmental proceedings and the criminal
case in relation to the same incidence of assault on Rifleman Bhojveer Singh
Chauhan. The evidence adduced in the departmental proceedings are common
to those in criminal case. In fact, in the criminal case, the prosecution has
adduced other witnesses including medical witnesses to substantiate the
charges. The prosecution, however, failed to establish the charges on the basis
of 14 witnesses and a number of documentary evidence in the nature of
exhibits adduced during trial. The informant Randheer Singh Chauhan, brother
of the victim Bhojveer Singh Chauhan appeared and deposed as PW-4.
16. The principle of law in such circumstances as rendered by the
Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal (supra) commends that if the charges in the
departmental enquiry and the Criminal Court are identical or similar, and if the
evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same, then the matter
acquires a different dimension and if the Court in judicial review concludes
that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full consideration of the
prosecution evidence and the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges,
it can grant redress in certain circumstances. This Court would be entitled to
exercise its discretion and grant relief, if it concludes that allowing the findings
in the disciplinary proceedings to stand will be unjust, unfair and oppressive.
The Apex Court has also placed reliance upon the decisions of
G.M. Tank (supra), State Bank of Hyderabad vrs. P. Kata Rao reported in
(2008) 15 SCC 657 and that of State of Tamil Nadu vrs. S. Samuthiram
reported in (2013) 1 SCC 598.
17. We have examined the substance of the judgment of acquittal
rendered in the criminal case. On an objective reading of the discussion on
evidence and other materials recorded by the learned trial Court, it is evident
that the accused persons have been acquitted not on account of the fact that the
prosecution had not been able to produce any evidence to substantiate its
charges but despite adducing 14 number of witnesses and other documentary
evidence in the form of exhibits and also medical witnesses, had failed to
substantiate the charges beyond reasonable doubt. In fact, on the analysis of the
statement of the victim Shri Bhojveer Singh Chauhan (PW-3) read with the
deposition of PW-7, Sri Purna Kr. Chakma, whom the victim had met soon
after, the learned Court found that the victim had not disclosed the names of the
accused persons to him though they were posted in the camp of 12th Bn TSR,
Chakmaghat. The victim had not informed the adjutant of the 12th Bn TSR or
the attending doctor of Teliamura Hospital about the alleged incidence of
assault on 13.05.2019. It was only after 8(eight) days of the incidence that on
20.05.2019 the FIR was instituted by his brother Randhir Singh Chouhan. No
TSR official had filed any FIR against the accused persons. In such
circumstances, when the allegations of a co-employee of the writ petitioners
relating to serious charges of assault and criminal trespass have failed to pass
the test of proof before a Criminal Court, a major penalty of dismissal from
service of the delinquent employees, i.e. the writ petitioners in a departmental
proceedings based on same set of charges and evidence would be wholly
unjust, unfair and oppressive in the eye of law.
18. Though the learned Writ Court has been persuaded by different set
of reasonings as regards the conduct of the departmental proceedings but this
Court on independent consideration and for the reasoning recorded hereinabove
does not find any cogent reason to interfere in the findings of the learned Writ
Court so far as the impugned penalty orders having been set aside. The
operative directions of the learned Writ Court, therefore, do not require any
interference by this Court in appeal, of course for independent reasons.
However, we are inclined to modify the consequential reliefs granted in favour
of the writ petitioners. The writ petitioners had faced criminal prosecution not
at the behest of the employer but by a colleague or a third party. However, the
employer has been denied the benefit of the services of the writ petitioners on
account of such criminal charges for a considerable period of time. Therefore,
while reinstating them in service with consequential seniority and benefits of
pay revision with notional fixation for the period they remained out of service,
unless individual writ petitioners are suffering any other punishment in any
departmental proceeding other than the present one, we are of the considered
opinion that the writ petitioners would be entitled to only 50% of the back
wages instead of full back wages granted by the learned Writ Court. The
directions of the Writ Court as regards consequential benefits are modified to
the extent indicated hereinabove.
19. In the facts and circumstances and for the reasons discussed
above, the Writ appeal stands dismissed. It is informed that the writ petitioners
have not been reinstated in service because of an interim order obtained in the
present appeal. In those circumstances, the respondents would reinstate the writ
petitioners within a period of 8(eight) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of
this order.
20. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(S.D. PURKAYASTHA), J (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
Pulak
PULAK BANIK Digitally signed by PULAK BANIK
Date: 2025.02.11 16:12:58 +05'30'
