No.01080875 Havildar (Clerk) Naresh Kumar of 3rd Bn
TSR made transfers/deposited in investment funds in
between 2021 to 2023 without the knowledge of his
controlling authority. Therefore his transactions were not
related to domestic purposes.
account statement of the petitioner for the period of 2021-2023.
[4] In the departmental proceeding, no witness was
examined on behalf of the prosecuting agency. Thereafter, the
Thereafter, another memorandum was issued by
disciplinary authority on 19.10.2023 (Annexure-23) to the
[5] The petitioner of the instant case submitted
him. Against the same, the present petitioner preferred the appeal
before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority
Challenging the same the present writ petition is filed.
proceeding was drawn against the petitioner, Sri. Manoj. M vide
failed in intimating the same to the competent authority. In this
case also, the statement of salary account of the petitioner Sri.
Manoj M. Havildar of 7th Bn. TSR for the period from 2021-2023
charge was proved. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority vide
submit representation in this regard, if any, with further
(Conduct) Rule, 1988 read with Section 11(N) of TSR Act, 1983.
16) penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on him.
(Annexure-18) with similar observations as made in WP(C) No.
Thereafter, the writ petition is filed.
By the above act, he has violated service rules which amount
to an act unbecoming of a government servant.
Sd/- Illegible
(Ranaditya Das)
Commandant
12th Battalion TSR (IR-VIII)"
[10] In this case also only the salary bank account
statement of the petitioner for the period from 2021-2023 was
proposed to be relied upon and no witness was examined. The
petitioner duly submitted his written statement denying the
allegations borne in the article of charge. Thereafter, the enquiry
officer submitted his report vide the report dated 05.08.2023
(Annexure-35) holding that article of charge was proved against
him. Thereafter, memorandum dated 11.10.2023 (Annexure 36)
was issued by the disciplinary authority proposing dismissal from
service to which the petitioner submitted his representation and
ultimately vide order dated 12.12.2023 (Annexure-42), the
Disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of dismissal from
service of the petitioner. The petitioner also similarly preferred
appeal before the appellate authority which was dismissed vide
order dated 14.03.2024 (Annexure-44) with similar observations
as were made in the earlier cases as mentioned above.
[11] In WP(C) No.326/2024 the charge was framed against
the petitioner namely Birendra Singh of 13 BN, TSR with similar
proposal to rely only on the salary bank account statement of the
petitioner for the period from 2021-2023 with further proposal not
to examine any witness in the case. The Article of charge is quoted
hereunder:
Shri Virendra Singh, Subedar (GD), 13th BN TSR is
charged with violation of service rules. He has entered into
transactions of money from his salary bank account which
required due intimation to authority.
He failed in intimating the same to the competent
authority.
By the above act, he has violated service rules which
amount to an act unbecoming of a government servant."
[12] The petitioner denied the charge by filing written
statement and ultimately, the enquiry authority vide report dated
2.8.2023 (Annexure B) held that the charge was proved and then
vide memorandum dated 17.10.2023 (Annexure-4) the disciplinary
authority proposed punishment of dismissal from service observing
further that the petitioner had violated the provisions of Rule 18 of
Tripura Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1988 read with section 11(n)
of TSR Act, 1983.
[13] Thereafter, the petitioner duly submitted his
representation and finally vide order dated 21.12.2023 (Annexure-
7) the disciplinary authority imposed penalty of dismissal from
service on him. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred an appeal and
as reflected in paragraph 40 of the affidavit-in-opposition
submitted by the Respondents, the appeal is still pending.
[14] In WP(C) No. 453/2024, similarly vide memorandum
dated 16.05.2023 (Annexure-1) the departmental proceeding was
initiated against the petitioner Sri. Krishna Shil, Enrolled Follower
(Barber) of 5th Bn. TSR with the following charge of similar nature:
No.20005252 E/F(Barbar) Krishna Shil of 'D' Coy 5th Bn
TSR(IR-I) is charged with violation of service rules. He has
entered into transactions of money from his salary bank
account which required due intimation to authority. He failed
in intimating the same to the competent authority.
By the above act, he has violated service rules which
amount to an act unbecoming of a government servant.
Sd/-Illegible
Commandant 5th Battalion
TSR (IR-I)"
[15] In this case was also no witness was proposed to be
examined in the enquiry by the prosecuting authority and only
salary account statement of the petitioner for the period from
2021-2023 was proposed to be relied on. The enquiry officer on
completion of enquiry submitted his report dated 02.08.2023
(Annexure-17) with the findings that on the basis of documentary
and oral evidences adduced during the enquiry ultimately the
charge was proved. From the said enquiry report it reveals that
the oral evidence was of the statement of charged official and not
of any evidence of prosecution witness.
[16] The disciplinary authority vide memorandum dated
19.10.2023 (Annexure-18) proposed penalty of dismissal from
service of the petitioner giving him an opportunity to submit
representation. The disciplinary authority also observed violation
of Rule 18 of Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988 read
with section 11(n) of TSR Act, 1983. The petitioner thereafter
submitted his representation on 30.10.2023 (Annexure-19) and on
consideration of the same disciplinary authority issued order dated
12.12.2023 (Annexure-20) by imposing penalty of dismissal from
service upon the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter preferred
appeal and the appellate authority also rejected the appeal vide
order dated 07.03.2024 (Annexure-22) with similar observation
like other cases which is extracted hereunder:
"6. AND WHEREAS, the contentions raised in the
appeal petition have been meticulously scrutinized. Based on
the materials on record, it has been found that the
proceedings were conducted as per laid down ruled, principle
of natural justice had been duly followed in letter and spirit
and the punishment does not seem disproportionate when
the service violations are seen in the light of large sums of
multiple non-treasury credit transactions and the
detrimental impact of his actions on the morale and
regimentation of the force. Therefore, the points raised by
the appellant through his appeal petition are found to be
devoid of merit.
7. NOW THEREFORE, after careful consideration of
all relevant aspects including nature and frequency of
violations, sufficient opportunities provided to the appellant
to put forward his defence, the contentions raised by the
appellant in his representation and the scrutiny thereof, the
appeal petition of Shri Krishna Shil, Ex-Enrolled Follower, 5th
Bn TSR is rejected and the order of the Disciplinary Authority
issued vide No.41/TSR-V(IR-I)/Estt/DP/2022/6996-7001
dated 12.12.2023 is upheld."
[17] Challenging the said orders of the appellate authority as
well as of the disciplinary authority, all the writ petitions are filed
except case no. WP © 326 of 2024 where the appeal is still
pending.
[18] Learned counsel of all the petitioners contend that no
charge of any dis-proportionate asset was framed against the
petitioners in any of the cases and even the charges as were
framed in each case, are also vague and non-specific. But despite
the same, major punishment was imposed upon the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to the provisions
of Section 11(n) of Tripura State Rifles Act, 1983 under which the
punishment was proposed by the disciplinary authority to show
that said violation/offence is categorized as less heinous offence in
the Act itself, and therefore, according to the learned counsel,
such imposition of major punishment of dismissal was quite
disproportionate and not tenable at law.
[19] Learned senior counsel, Mr. Bhattachajee, also further
argued that the provisions of sub-rule (11) & (14) of Rule 14 of
CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was not complied with by the enquiring
authority as no oral or documentary evidence was proved from the
side of the prosecution and therefore, the entire proceeding was
vitiated thereby.
[20] According to the learned counsel of all the petitioners,
the departmental authority ought to have exonerated the
petitioners from any such charge and on failure on the part of the
disciplinary authority, it was also incumbent upon the appellate
authority to consider all these points as raised by the petitioners in
their appeals, but the appellate authority rejected the appeals
without having any discussions on the points as raised by the
petitioners in the appeals.
[21] According to the learned counsel, it was the duty of the
appellate authority to pass a reasoned order giving by due findings
on each point as raised by the petitioners in their appeals but by a
vague order bereft of any reasoning, the orders of the disciplinary
authority were upheld. Even the appellate authority failed to
consider the proportionality of the punishment as imposed by the
disciplinary authority despite challenge being made in this regard
referring Section 11(n) of Tripura State Rifles Act, 1983.
[22] Learned Addl. GA Mr. M Debbarma, on the other hand
opposes the prayers of the petitioners referring to the averments
made in the respective counter affidavits filed in these writ
petitions and submits that from the above said transactions, as
were proved in the disciplinary proceeding, it is quite clear that
huge amount of transactions was made by each of the petitioners
which hint at accumulation of disproportionate assets by them and
therefore, the disciplinary authority was justified in imposing major
punishment of dismissal from service as TSR is a disciplined force.
[23] This court has taken into consideration the rival
submissions of the parties as well as the materials placed on the
record, more particularly the order of the appellate authority. As
indicated above, the charge was basically framed for not giving
intimation to the appropriate authority regarding such bank
transactions made by the petitioners and there was no whisper of
any sort of allegation of accumulation or acquiring of
disproportionate assets by them. It is also a fact that Section 11
(n) of Tripura State Rifles Act, 1983 is categorized as less heinous
offences in the Act itself. It is also a fact that the challenge
regarding proportionality of the punishment though raised before
the appellate authority was not discussed by the said authority
apart from the other points as raised in the respective appeals.
[24] The appellate authority is/was duty bound to pass a
reasoned order on the points of challenge as raised by the
petitioners in the appeal but without considering the same and
also without giving any findings on the point as raised by the
petitioners the appeals were disposed of by way of rejection only
with some bald observations that proceedings were conducted as
per the established rules, principle of natural justice was also
followed, and punishment did not appear to be disproportionate in
the light of large sums of various non-treasury credit transaction
and the negative impact of their action on the morale regiment of
the force. This court is not satisfied in the manner as to how the
disciplinary authority had dealt with all the appeals without
discussing the grounds agitated in the appeals, while giving its
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 implications, an administrative authority exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions is required to record the reasons
for its decision.
[25] In view of above, all the writ petitions are allowed. The
orders passed by the appellate authority in above said petitions, as
indicated above, except in case of WP(C) No. 326/2024 are
consequently set aside and the matter is remanded back to the
concerned appellate authority to decide the appeals afresh and to
dispose of the same by reasoned orders after giving due
consideration on the points of challenges as raised by them
therein. The appellate authority shall take endeavor to dispose of
the appeals as expeditiously as possible preferably within two
months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
[26] So far WP(C) No. 326/2024 is concerned, it appears
that the appeal is still pending before the appellate authority, and
therefore, said writ petition is disposed with a direction to the
concerned appellate authority to dispose of the said appeal in the
similar manner as indicated in the previous paragraph no. 25,
preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment.
All the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.
Interim applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
JUDGE
SATABDI DUTTA Digitally signed by SATABDI DUTTA
Date: 2025.06.30 17:42:16 -07'00'
Satabdi
