Tripura High Court
Kanwaljit Yadav vs The State Of Tripura on 26 June, 2025
Page 1 of 8
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.376 of 2024
1. Kanwaljit Yadav,
S/o:- Lt. Rajkaran,
R/O:- Vill- Phideri, P.O. MajraSheoraj,
Rewari, Haryana, PIN;123401
...............Petitioner(s).
Versus
1. The State of Tripura
Represented by the Secretary, Department of Home,
Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Building, New Capital
Complex, Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala, West
Tripura, PIN: 799010
2. The Director General of Police,
Police Head Quarters, Govt. of Tripura, Fire Brigade Chowmuhani,
P.O- Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799001.
3. The Inspector General of Police (TSR & OPS),
Government Of Tripura, Agartala, West Tripura.
4. The Commandant, 3rd Bn TSR,
Government of Tripura, PTS Wazirabad, Delhi, 110090
5. The Commandant, 5th Bn TSR(IR-I),
HQr, Daluma, Amarpur, Gomati, Tripura
6. The Commandant, 8th Bn TSR,
Govt. Of Tripura, Lalcherra, Chailengta, Dhalai.
............Respondent(s).
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, Sr. Adv.
: Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Addl. G.A.
Date of hearing &
date of delivery of Judgment : 26.06.2025
Whether fit for reporting : No
_B_E_ F_O_R_E_
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, learned senior
counsel assisted by Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Mangal Debbarma,
learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the State-respondents.
[2] The petitioner was serving as Subedar (Head
Clerk) in 3rd BN TSR and against him vide memorandum dated
16.05.2023 (Annexure-5) a departmental proceeding was initiated
with the following charge:
Statement of Article of charge against Shri.
Kanwaljit Yadav, 3rd BN TSR
Article of charge No.1
Sub (Head Clerk) Shri. Kanwaljit Yadav,
3rd 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.
[3] For further useful reference, the statement of
imputation, list of the documents to be relied upon and the list of
witness to be examined in the departmental proceedings, are also
described hereunder:
" Statement Of Imputation In Supprot Of The
Article Of Charge Framed Against Sub (Head
Clerk) Shri. Kanwaljit Yadav, 3rd BN TSR
Sub (Head Clerk) Shri. Kanwaljit Yadav, 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.
He has thus, 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.
List of documents based on which the
Article of charge framed against Sub (Head clerk)
Shri Kanwaljit Yadav, 3rd BN TSR, Tripura is
proposed to be sustained.
Salary Bank Account statement of Sub
rd
(Head Clerk) Shri Kanwaljit Yadav, 3 BN TSR for
a period of 2021 to 2023.
List of witnesses by whose statements the
article of charge framed against the Sub (Head
Clerk) Shri Kanwaljit Yadav, 3rd BN TSR, Tripura
is proposed to be sustained.
Nil."
[4] After initiation of such proceeding the necessary
enquiry commenced against the petitioner and after conclusion of
the same, the Enquiry Authority submitted his report dated
14.08.2023 to the Disciplinary Authority. The entire findings of the
Enquiry Authority is extracted below for convenience of
discussions.
"6. Findings:-
During the course of enquiry I have
examined the available records and heard the
Charged Official in person (Statement in
Annexure-E2) and recorded his statements of
the charged official.
On examination of the charged official it is
revealed that the Charged Official namely Sub
(Head Clerk) Shri Kanwaljit Yadav of 8th Bn TSR
was posted in 5th BN TSR Head Quarter, Duluma,
P.S:-Birganj as Subedar (Accountant) in the year
2021. His basic pay / salary as on 17-03-2021
was Rs.66,000 (Rupees Sixty six thousand) only
and he applied for loan of Rs.7,00,000/-(Rupees
Seven Lakhs) only from State Bank of India,
Amarpur Branch in the month of March, 2021 for
which requisite certificate of DDO of his Unit was
obtained and the amount of loan as aforesaid was
credited to his salary account on 17-03-2021. He
paid all the remaining instalments of his previous
loan taken from State Bank of India, Amarpur
Branch, amounting to Rs.6,06,710/- (Rupees Six
Lakhs six thousand seven hundred ten) only with
the loan credited to his salary account on 17-03-
2021 as aforesaid.
He also stated that he did not intimate his
authority in respect of his loan amounting to
Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs) only taken
from State Bank of India, Amarpur Branch and
credited to his salary account on 17-03-2021 nor
did he inform about the amount of Rs.6,06,710/-
(Rupees Six Lakhs six thousand seven hundred
ten) only debited from his salary account in
payment of his remaining instalments of his
previous loan in prescribed format under Rule
18(3) of the CCS(CCA) Rule. (Statement of the
Charged Official is enclosed in Annexure-F). The
said format is shown to him by the Presenting
Officer of the instant D.P. wherein the Charged
Official admitted that he did not intimate the
Competent Authority in this prescribed format by
putting his acknowledgement thereon.
(Annexure-G)
The Charged Official submitted his further
written statement of defence (Annexure-F)
wherein he narrated the details of his
transactions in salary account exceeding his two
months basic pay an amount of loan of
Rs.7,00,000/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs) and payment
of Rs.6,06,710/- (Rupees Six Lakhs six thousand
seven hundred ten) towards his previous loan,
but he relied upon the fact that he submitted the
bank loan application through DDO 5th Bn TSR and
Branch Manager of the State Bank of India,
Amarpur Branch intimated the DDO, 5th Bn TSR
about the sanction of personal loan to the
Charged Official. However he could not submit
any reasonable justification in respect of non
intimation about the aforesaid transaction to the
competent authority as per the provision of Rule
18(3) of CCS (CCA) Rule.
Under the above facts and circumstances,
the Article of Charge-I framed against Sub (Head
Clerk) Shri Kanwaljit Yadav of 8th Bn TSR is
proved.
[5] After said enquiry report was submitted by the
Enquiring Officer, another memorandum was issued by the
Disciplinary Authority on 17.10.2023 (Annexure-21) with the
observation that there were over 75 violations of non-reporting of
non-treasury transactions above the specified limit in violation of
Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988 which could not be
seen as a non-reporting error or oversight on part of the Charged
Official and such instances of non-reporting of transaction is in
contravention of Rule 18 of Tripura Civil Services ( Conduct) Rules,
1988 read with section 11(n) of TSR Act, 1983 with large number
of credit transactions in the bank account of Charged Official and,
therefore, the Disciplinary Authority proposed punishment of
dismissal from the service of the petitioner and gave him
opportunity to submit representation there against. The petitioner
thereafter submitted his representation on 02.11.2023 (Annexure-
22) and on consideration of the same, the Disciplinary Authority
ultimately imposed penalty of dismissal from service vide order
dated 20.12.2023 (Annexure-24). The petitioner thereafter
preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority on 27.12.2023 and
according to the petitioner, same is still pending.
[6] Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, learned senior
counsel for the petitioner argues that the allegation against the
petitioner was only relating to some bank transactions which were
related to a loan received by him even with the permission of his
DDO and also regarding repayment of said loan amount by certain
instalments and no allegation of any other private transactions or
earning of any property or monetary benefit otherwise is not there
and the enquiry report also concludes with its finding relying on
said loan transaction only, but going beyond the records and the
report of enquiry authority, the Disciplinary Authority has
arbitrarily mentioned of alleged 75 number of transactions in
support of his decision. Therefore, the order of the Disciplinary
Authority was beyond the evidence rendering it illegal and ultra
vires. Learned senior counsel further submits that the very enquiry
report itself is illegal as during enquiry, the provisions of sub rule
11 & 14 of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules were not followed, and no
evidence either oral or documentary was adduced from the side of
prosecution. The next point as raised by learned senior counsel is
that the charge itself was vague for non-mentioning of any specific
transaction under allegation in the charge and even in this regard
when an application was filed on 30.07.2023 (Annexure-14) before
the Enquiry Officer seeking information about list of specific
transaction, credits and debits date wise which according to the
Disciplinary Authority amounted to violation of the rules, for his
own clarification and for taking proper defence along with some
other documents, but said prayer was declined.
[7] Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel also
contends that the memorandum dated 17.10.2023 (Annexure-21)
of the Disciplinary Authority while proposing the punishment of
dismissal from service, also refers the provisions of Rule 18 of
Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988 read with Section
11(n) of TSR Act, 1983, but said Section 11(n) is categorised as
less heinous offence in the very Act of 1983 itself, but despite the
same a major punishment of dismissal from service was imposed.
The penalty was, therefore, highly disproportionate. Mr. Roy
Barman, learned senior counsel also submits that there was no
allegation or charge of accumulation of any disproportionate assets
and the enquiring authority also did not observe anything as such,
but despite the same the Disciplinary Authority illegally observed
that the source of the credit amounts was not disclosed by the
petitioner. Finally learned senior counsel argues that the entire
proceeding against the petitioner and punishment imposed upon
him based on such disciplinary proceeding was illegal and ultra
vires and, therefore, same is liable to be quashed.
[8] Mr. Mangal Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A., on the
other hand, argues that it is evident above said memorandum
dated 17.10.2023 (Annexure-21) that there were total 75 numbers
of transactions revealed during enquiry which were not intimated
to the appropriate authority in compliance of Rule 18 of Tripura
Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988 and, therefore, it was a case
of disproportionate asset and hence the Disciplinary Authority was
completely justified in imposing the penalty of dismissal of service
upon the petitioner.
[9] This court has given due consideration to the
submissions of both sides and also has gone through the materials
placed in the record. It is admitted position that an appeal was
filed before the Appellate Authority by the petitioner which, for a
long period, is pending. As per Rule 46 of Tripura State Rifles
(Discipline, Control, Service Conditions etc.) Rules, 1986, it is
incumbent upon the authority to decide the appeal in accordance
with the said rules, but till date same has not been disposed of.
[ 10 ] Considering that aspect, without giving any
observation or findings on the merit of the writ petition, the writ
petition is disposed of with a direction to the appellate authority to
dispose of the said appeal preferably within 02(two) months from
the date receipt of copy of this order. Needless to say, while
disposing the appeal the appellate authority shall pass a reasoned
order having due regards to the points of challenge as raised by
the petitioner and as indicated above.
With such observations and direction, the writ
petition is disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands
disposed of.
JUDGE
SATABDI DUTTA DUTTA
Date: 2025.06.30 12:52:06 +05'30'
Riki
