The Accused Officer in his written brief of argument had also
pointed out that the name of the complainant had not been included in
the list of Prosecution Witnesses and as a result there was so scope to
examine her in order to find out the actual truth behind such
complaint against him.
The burden of proof is always on the prosecution. The disciplinary authority
penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 09.09.2022 (Annexure-8).
Development Department, Government of Tripura. Thereafter, the penalty of
passed by the writ Court in WPC No.987 of 2022 (Annexure11). The
Disciplinary Authority was directed to pass a fresh order.
10. The writ petitioner again made a representation to the
departmental proceeding. However, the disciplinary authority again passed an
"WHEREAS, in pursuance with the order passed by the
Hon'ble High Court of Tripura, Shri Bikash Bhowmik. Junior
Engineer Gr-l given an opportunity to present physically in hearing
before the Disciplinary Authority on 09/12/2022 at 11:00 AM to
explain the factual status on charges framed against him in Article-I,
"Shri Bikash Bhowmik, Junior Engineer Gr-I while functioning as
Junior Engineer attached to the O/o the BDO, Mohanpur RD Block
has accumulated amount disproportionate to his income............
Such act of accumulation of huge amount disproportionate to income
by Shri Bikash Bhowmik, Junior Engineer Gr-I................. had
created assets during the period to March, 2012 for a sum of
Rs.74,26,472/- whereas the concerned JE has a total income
amounting to Rs.22,13,279/- from his salary during the period from
1998 to March, 2012" and Article-II:- "Shri Bikash Bhowmik, Junior
Engineer Gr-I having regard to the facts & circumstances had been
alleged............. for committing offence under the prevention of
corruption Act, 1998. The act of committing offence by Shri Bikash
Bhowmik, Junior Engineer Gr-I is in violation of TCS Conduct
Rule..................... Shri Bikash Bhowmik, Junior Engineer Gr-I
has created assets during the period 1998 to March, 2012 for an
amount of Rs.74,26,472/-, whereas he earned from salary
Rs.22,13,279/ only during the period............. out of the aforesaid
sum earned, the minimum amount for Rs.8,85,312/- can be deducted
towards family expenses and therefore, his total asset should be
Rs.13,27,967/- as 60% of his total income. Also, it has been noted in
the Judgment that the sum of Rs.74,26,472/- is vastly disproportionate
to his known source of income and he committed an offence under
Section 5(1)(c) which is equivalent to Section 13(1)(e) of the
Prevention Corruption Act, 1988......"
AND
WHEREAS, Shri Bikash Bhowmik, Junior Engineer Gr-I
(Accused Officer) has submitted his written reply on 12/12/2022:
AND
WHEREAS, a time petition was filed and in response the
Hon'ble High Court of Tripura considered the petition on 19/12/2022
with the following remarks "Direct the petitioner-respondent, Sri
Bikash Bhowmik to submit representation within 7(seven) days from
today. After receipt of the representation, if any, the respondent-
petitioner will dispose of the representation of the petitioner-
respondent within 3 (three) weeks thereafter"
AND
WHEREAS, the factual status on the reply of the Accused
Officer submitted on 12/12/2022:-
The Accused Office (AO) has denied all charges framed
against him and pleaded that he has not accumulated any asset beyond
his known source of income. AO has also referred the findings of the
Inquiry Authority which couldn't sustained/established the charges
framed against the Accused Officer. He also alleged that the principle
of natural justice was not followed in his case as he was not served
with the concurrence advice of the TPSC to the disagreement proposal
of Disciplinary Authority.
AND
WHEREAS, the salary statement of Shri Bhowmik (AO)
reflects that his total income from salary is Rs.22,56,475/- during the
period from 1998 to March 2012. But after assessing all relevant
documents such as bank statements, post office deposits, insurance
and taking into consideration rough analysis of his immovable and
movable properties, it is evident that Shri Bhowmik (AO) has
accumulated assets beyond his known source of income, which has
been enumerated in Article-I and II of charge-sheet
NOW, THEREFORE, after giving the Accused Office an
opportunity of being heard to establish the principle of natural justice
and carefully analysing the written reply of the Accused Officer along
with all relevant documents such as his bank statements, assessment
of building plan by PWD (R&B) and other statements/documents in
connection with the immovable and movable property of Accused
Officer, it becomes established fact beyond doubt that the Accused
Officer has accumulated assets beyond his known sources of income
during the period from 1998 to March 2012.
Since Shri Bhowmik holding a public office of Junior Engineer
Gr-I and any kind of such allegation of disproportionate of assets have
far reaching consequences in general public at large and malign the
public offices in general, there is no other option but to impose major
penalty for discouraging such action and to imbibe a sense of morality
among the public servant, who are doing their duty diligently and
sincerely.
In view of the above, to instill confidence in the public service.
I have independently applied my analytical mind, do hereby impose a
major penalty under Rule-11 (ix) of CCS (CC&A) Rules 1965 i.e.
"Dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification
for future employment" upon Shri Bikash Bhowmik, Junior Engineer
Gr-I (Accused Officer)."
11. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved, has approached the learned
writ Court in WP(C) No.96 of 2023. By the impugned judgment dated
19.07.2023, the order of penalty of dismissal from service has been set aside
with a direction to reinstate the writ petitioner with all consequential benefits.
The operative part of the impugned judgment is also extracted hereunder:
"6. It is evident from the record that though an allegation
has been raised that the petitioner has accumulated unaccounted
wealth disproportionate to his income, but, the count of those wealth
has not been given or pinpointed as to where the petitioner has
accumulated it. No bank statements or property has been mentioned
by the respondent authorities. Further, the respondents have not given
proper reasons and passed a detailed order while imposing punishment
on the petitioner herein. Even in the A.R. Srinivasan(supra), the Full
Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court stated that the authorities have to pass a
detailed order while imposing punishment in a Disciplinary
proceeding, but the same has not been followed in the case at hand.
The inquiry report since not accepted no reasons to is given indicating
as to what portion of the report is not accepted. It is against Rule 15 of
CCS CCA Rules.
7. In view of the above reasons, the present writ petition
is allowed and the impugned Order is set aside. The petitioner is
reinstated into his service with all consequential benefits. However,
this Court has taken into consideration the prima facie allegations of
disproportionate assets against the petitioner herein and directs the
respondents that while reinstating the petitioner to his service, he
should not be posted to the original place of posting instead the
petitioner should be posted elsewhere in the same rank.
8. As a sequel, stay if any stands vacated. Pending
application(s), if any also stands closed."
12. On behalf of the appellant-State, the following submissions have
been made:
(a) The Constitution Bench has clearly laid down that even
after the charges which have been proved, justify imposition of
penalty, the Hon'ble Court may not exercise its power of judicial
review. The settled legal position is that if there is some legal
evidence on which the findings can be based, then adequacy or
even reliability of that evidence is not a matter for canvassing
before the High Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution.
(b) The power of judicial review, in the matters of
disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the departmental/ appellate
authorities, discharged by Constitutional Courts under Article
226 or Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India is
circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural
errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of
natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on
merits as an appellate authority.
(c) The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts.
Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has
coextensive power to re-appreciate the evidence or the nature of
punishment. He has referred to the decisions of the Apex Court
in the case of (i) High Court of Judicature at Bombay Versus
Shashikant S. Patil and another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 416;
(ii) B.C. Chaturvedi Versus Union of India and others reported
in (1995) 6 SCC 749; (iii) Pravin Kumar Versus Union of India
and others reported in (2020) 9 SCC 471; (iv) State Bank of
Bikaner and Jaipur Versus Nemi Chand Nalwaya reported in
AIR 2011 SC 1931.
(d) That the writ petitioner had alternative remedy available
for preferring appeal before the Appellate Authority challenging
the penalty order passed by the Disciplinary Authority
(Secretary, RD Department). In view of notification vide no.
F.5(1)-GA(AR)/2002/P-II/113, dated 11-01-2019 issued by the
GA(AR) Department, Govt. of Tripura, the Appellate Authority
is Chief Secretary, Govt. of Tripura for the present case of the
writ petitioner. But the petitioner did not avail the route of
alternative remedy for filing appeal as per Rule -23 of
CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 and instead the petitioner filed the writ
petition directly against the penalty order issued by the
Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed as the writ court should not exercise the power of
judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as
there is efficacious alternative remedy was available but not
availed of by the writ petitioner.
13. On behalf of the writ petitioner/respondent the following
submissions have been made:
(a) Even though, in the Articles of Charge, seven witnesses
were cited as Prosecution Witnesses, but only three witnesses,
namely, Sri Swapan Kumar Das, Senior Deputy Magistrate
(Retired), Sri Sandeep Chakraborty, SDM, Kumarghat and Sri
Narayan Das were examined (at Pages-70 to 71 of the Paper
Book). Curiously, the complainant, Smt. Sarbani Das was not
cited as a Prosecution Witness.
(b) PW-1 Sri Swapan Kumar Das, Senior Deputy Magistrate
(Retired) stated that he does not know the writ petitioner, nor
was he aware of the allegations levelled against him.
(c) PW-2 Sri Sandeep Chakraborty stated that he does not
know as to whether the writ petitioner had acquired
disproportionate assets, and without verifying the actual fact, he
had lodged the complaint against the petitioner, under the
direction of the superior officers.
(d) PW-3 Sri Narayan Das also stated that he does not know
the petitioner, nor was he aware of the Charges levelled against
him.
(e) Even though, in the List of Documents, as contained in the
Articles of Charge, three documents were mentioned, but none
of the said three documents were exhibited (Page-72 of the Paper
Book).
(f) Even the Salary Statement, Bank Statements, Bank Pass
Books, Fixed Deposit Certificates, Insurance Policies,
Registration Certificates of the vehicles of the writ petitioner was
not entered into the List of Documents (Page-54 of the Paper
Book), nor the said Documents were exhibited (Page 74 of the
Paper Book).
(g) It is most humbly respectfully submitted that in the
absence of proof of the said documents, and on the teeth of the
depositions of the said witnesses, by no stretch of imagination, a
case of disproportionate assets can be made out.
14. Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior counsel for the writ
petitioner/respondent submits that the departmental proceeding has been
initiated by the District Magistrate and Collector, West Tripura vide
memorandum dated 28.03.2015 (Annexure-2) against the writ petitioner
without prior approval of the concerned minister. The impugned order of
punishment dated 27.12.2022 (Annexure-15) has been passed by the
Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Tripura
also without prior approval of the concerned minister. Therefore, initiation of
the proceedings and its culmination by the order of dismissal both suffer from
absence of approval of the competent authority. He has referred to the
decisions of the Apex Court in the case of (i) Union of India and others
Versus B.V. Gopinath rendered in (2014) 1 SCC 351; (ii) S.P. Malhotra
Versus Punjab National Bank and others Reported in (2013) 7 SCC 251.
The order of disagreement dated 29.04.2022 (Annexure-5) and the order of
punishment dated 27.12.2022 (Annexure-15) does not refer to any evidence
collected during course of the inquiry and the tentative reasons for his
disagreement with the findings of the inquiry authority as mandated under
Rule 15(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 1965. The concurrence by the TPSC does not meet the sufficient
compliance of the requirements of Rule 15(3) of the Central Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 read with Article 320(3)(c)
of the Constitution of India. The impugned order of punishment is also
unsustainable in law as it fails to record reasons to support the major penalty
of dismissal from service. Learned senior counsel for the writ
petitioner/respondent has referred to Article 166 of the Constitution of India
and the Rules of Executive Business of the Government of the State of
Tripura, 1972 (Business Rule, for short) in particular Rules 30A and 30B
which relegate the power upon the competent authority to initiate disciplinary
proceedings and to impose penalty upon any officers of the State
Government. It is the case of the writ petitioner that it is the minister of the
concerned department who was the competent authority for initiation of the
departmental proceedings. Reliance is also placed upon the office
memorandum dated 16.04.1969 issued by Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India. He submits that there is nothing on record to show that
any point of time, the approval of the concerned Minister, Tripura was taken,
either at the time of issuance of the initial Order of drawing of the article of
charges or at the subsequent stages.
15. Learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent also
submits that the order of penalty of dismissal from service is not sustainable
in law. The impugned judgment, therefore, does not require any interference.
There is absolutely no material on record of the inquiry proceedings to justify
any findings of acquisition of disproportionate assets by the writ petitioner
while serving as a junior engineer at the relevant point of time. Merely on the
basis of the recommendation of the learned Lokayukta, the penalty of
dismissal cannot be sustained as none of the ingredients to support the charge
of acquisition of disproportionate assets have been laid before the inquiry
officer, i.e. such as the gross salary of the writ petitioner earned during the
subject period from the known sources. None of the details of the assets of
the writ petitioner have been placed during the inquiry proceeding to
substantiate the charges that these were acquired beyond his known sources
of income. The inquiry officer has in categorical terms rendered findings that
the presenting officer and the prosecution witnesses did not exhibit any
documents such as salary statements, bank statements, bank pass books, fixed
deposit certificates, insurance policies, registration certificates of the
vehicles, land documents etc. issued by the competent authority and duly
certified by them in respect of the accused officer to prove that he was having
disproportionate assets worth Rs.74,26,472/- only. The three witnesses out of
seven who appeared during inquiry proceeding completely denied any
knowledge of such acquisition of property by the writ petitioner. In the
absence of any tangible proof, the learned inquiry officer rightly exonerated
the writ petitioner. He submits that even in a departmental proceeding, if the
charges are serious and quasi-criminal in nature, the standard of proof should
be more stringent as it reflects on the integrity of the person and may also
lead to criminal prosecution. The prosecution has miserably failed to
establish any of the charges of such serious nature of acquisition of
disproportionate assets against the petitioner. Therefore, the learned writ
Court has rightly set aside the impugned judgment.
16. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
the parties and also taken note of the relevant materials placed from record.
During course of the proceedings on the previous date, taking note of the plea
raised by the writ petitioner and the State in that regard, the Secretary, Rural
Development Department and the District magistrate & Collector, West
Tripura were asked to appear with the relevant records of the departmental
proceedings in order to properly assist the Court. The officers, namely, Sri
Abhishek Singh, Secretary, RD Department, Government of Tripura, and Dr.
Vishal Kumar, DM & Collector, West Tripura, are present. The Secretary,
RD Department, Government of Tripura, has not disputed that the order of
penalty was passed without approval of the concerned minister. It is also
pointed out that when the departmental proceedings were initiated vide
memorandum dated 28.03.2015, the writ petitioner was not a gazetted officer.
Such proceedings were initiated by the District Magistrate & Collector, West
Tripura. It is also pointed out that at the stage of issuance of the disagreement
note, the concurrence of the Hon'ble Minister was taken. The Rules of
Executive Business framed under Article 166 of the Constitution of India
delegate the powers of disciplinary authority for different cadres of the
employees of the State Government. Absence of approval of the competent
authority before issuance of the order of penalty of dismissal from service in
the case of a gazetted officer which the petitioner enjoyed at the time of the
passing of the dismissal order, therefore is a legal infirmity which goes to the
root of the matter. [See: Union of India & others vrs. Paul George reported
in (2014) 1 SCC 351, paragraphs-40, 41 & 52]
17. Apart from that, on scrutiny of the relevant records relating to
the departmental proceeding, it transpires that none of the three prosecution
witnesses, out of seven, did support the charge. No documentary evidence
such as salary statement, bank statements, bank pass books, fixed deposit
certificates, insurance policies, registration certificate of vehicles, land
documents etc. in respect of the writ petitioner were evidenced which could
show his total income during the subject period and the assets to the tune of
Rs.74,26,472/- alleged to be acquired disproportionate to his known sources
of income. In the wake of such lack of material evidence, the inquiry officer
exonerated the writ petitioner from the charges. The disagreement note issued
by the disciplinary authority thereafter does not reflect any grounds for his
tentative findings differing with the report of the inquiry officer except what
has been referred to hereinabove. Though the report of the Lokayukta was
listed as a document under the memorandum of charges but none of the three
witnesses adduced it during the inquiry proceedings.
18. Sri Narayan Das, PW-3 in his deposition stated that he did not
recall whether he had appeared before the Lokayukta for deposition/ giving
evidence in relation to case No. CC No.2(LAW)/2012 (Smt. Shrabani Das
Versus Bikash Bhowmik).
Sri Sandip Chakraborty, PW-2 in his deposition stated that as
per the judgment and order passed by the Lokayukta, he came to know that
the total income from the salary in respect of the AO during the period from
1998 to March, 2012 was Rs.22,13,279/- only. However, he has also stated
that he had not received any documents relating to the monthly salary of the
AO for the period from 1998 to March, 2012 from DM's office, West
Tripura reflecting his pay and allowances and deductions etc. showing the
total salary income of Rs.22,13,279/- for the aforesaid period. He had lodged
the FIR based on the instructions given to him by the higher authorities. He
also could not recall whether he had issued work orders to the AO for
implementation of various schemes under MGNREGA, BADP and Housing
etc. when he was posted as BDO, Mohanpur RD Block. In his cross-
examination he denied having conducted any verification in the Banks & Post
Offices regarding any deposit of money by the AO.
Sri Swapan Kumar Das, PW-1 in his deposition clearly stated
that he did not know the accused officer. He was not aware of the charges
framed against him. During that material period, he was posted as Senior
Deputy Magistrate, DM's Office, West Tripura District, Agartala. He had
joined in the year 2011-12 and served till the year 2015-16. He has also stated
that he could not recall whether he had collected any statement or information
from the AO regarding accumulation of assets (movable, immovable
including bank balances) involving Rs.74,26,472/-. He did not know from
what sources the AO had accumulated the total amount of assets worth
Rs.74,26,472/- only while serving as Junior Engineer in different offices. He
did not recall whether any statement was prepared by him or any statement
was collected from any office where the AO was posted regarding total
amount of Rs.22,13,279/- only being the salary/income as Junior Engineer
during the period from 1998 to March, 2012.
19. Evidently the prosecution could not place incriminating
materials through cogent oral as well as documentary evidence relating to the
charge of acquisition of disproportionate assets during that period. Even on
remand, the fresh penalty order passed by the Secretary, RD Department only
records after referring to the articles of charges that his salary statement for
the period from 1998 to March, 2012 shows his income as Rs.22,56,475/-
but after assessing all relevant document such as bank statements, post office
deposits, insurance and taking into consideration rough analysis of his
immovable and movable properties, it is evident that Shri Bhomik has
accumulated assets beyond his known source of income, which has been
enumerated in Article I and II of charge-sheet. It further records that the
accused officer has been granted an opportunity of hearing in compliance
with the principles of natural justice. His written reply has also been
considered along with relevant documents such as bank statements,
assessment of building plan by PWD(R&B) and other statements/documents
in connection with his immovable and movable property which establishes a
fact beyond doubt that the AO has accumulated assets beyond his known
sources of income during the period from 1998 to March, 2012. However,
these materials purportedly referred to by the disciplinary authority were not
placed during the inquiry proceedings. Therefore, these findings are incorrect
and beyond the records of the departmental proceeding.
20. On behalf of the appellants, reliance is placed on the case of
Shashikant S. Patil and another (supra). The Apex Court has held that the
disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts if the enquiry has been
properly conducted. If there is some legal evidence on which findings can be
based then adequacy or even reliability of that evidence is not a matter to be
canvassed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In the present case as held above, the prosecution has failed to
substantiate the charges during inquiry by way of cogent legal evidence.
Therefore, Inquiry Officer had exonerated the petitioner/charged officer. The
disciplinary authority has while imposing the penalty of dismissal from
service sought to rely upon materials such as, bank statements, post office
deposits, rough analysis of the immovable and movable properties of the
charged officer without they be adduced during the inquiry proceedings. As
such, the order of penalty of dismissal was based upon no legal evidence. It is
not a case where the adequacy or reliability of an evidence is in question.
21. The case of B.C. Chaturvedi (supra) relates to the departmental
proceeding on charges of acquisition of assets disproportionate to his known
source of income of the charged officer. It is seen from the facts of the said
case that the inquiry officer had on the basis of the materials held the charges
to be proved against the appellant. The learned Central Administrative
Tribunal had appreciated the evidence and upheld the charges but converted
the order of dismissal into one of compulsory retirement. In such a case, the
Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the appeal of the Union of India while
dismissing that of the delinquent and observed that the findings or
conclusions must be based on some evidence though neither the technical
rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence defined therein, would
apply to disciplinary proceeding. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of
evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. The
disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. If the evidence and the
conclusion derived by the disciplinary authority are based on findings of fact,
the Court in its power of judicial review should not act as an appellate
authority to reappreciate evidence and to arrive at its own independent
findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the
authority has acted in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice
or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the
conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no
evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would
have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or
the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of
that case.
In the present case, apparently the prosecution had failed to
produce material evidence to substantiate the charge of disproportionate
assets allegedly acquired by the charged officer. Therefore, the inquiry officer
had exonerated the charged officer.
The order of penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority has
sought to rely upon materials which were never produced during inquiry or
confronted to the delinquent officer.
22. Same principles have been reiterated by the Apex Court in the
case of Pravin Kumar (supra) wherein the case of B.C. Chaturvedi referred
to hereinabove has also been relied upon.
In view of the reasons recorded in the foregoing paragraphs and
the discussions made hereinabove, the instant decision also does not come to
the aid of the appellants as the order of dismissal from service imposed by the
disciplinary authority even after remand was not based upon any materials
produced during the inquiry there were no such material evidence to support
such a finding.
23. The decision in the case of Nemi Chand Nalwaya (supra) relied
upon by the appellants is also of no aid for the above reasons. In the case of
Nemi Chand Nalwaya (supra) at paragraph-6 of the report, the Apex Court
has reiterated that the Courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded
in a departmental inquiry, except where such findings are based on no
evidence or where they are clearly perverse.
In the present case, the Inquiry Officer had exonerated the
charged officer as the prosecution had failed to establish the charges of
acquisition of disproportionate assets. The order of the disciplinary authority
has been set aside by the learned Writ Court. Upon scrutiny of the records of
the departmental proceeding, this Court has come to a conclusion that the
findings of the disciplinary authority and the order of dismissal were not
based on any materials adduced during inquiry. In fact, the prosecution had
completely failed to establish the charges. As such, the decisions relied upon
by the appellants are of no help in the facts of the present case.
24. The logical inference which flows out of the discussion made
hereinabove is that the respondent-employer had failed to establish the
charges leveled against the writ petitioner during the disciplinary inquiry. The
order of penalty also suffers from legal infirmities such as absence of
sanction of the competent authority before imposition of the punishment. The
learned writ Court though has not made any detail discussion on these issues
but on a comprehensive review of the entirety of the materials on record, this
Court does not find any basis to uphold the order of penalty rendered by the
disciplinary authority i.e. the Secretary, RD Department, Government of
Tripura. It may, however, be also pointed out that the writ petitioner is facing
criminal proceedings for acquisition of disproportionate assets being case No.
Special (PC) 01 of 2021 before the learned Special Judge, (Court No.4), West
Tripura, Agartala. The appellants-State has by way of an additional affidavit
filed during proceedings of this case, brought on record the order sheet of the
criminal case pending before the learned Special Judge, West Tripura,
Agartala. After going through the same, this Court had taken note that the
charge sheet in the disproportionate assets case was filed on 23.10.2021 but
till date charges have not been framed. This Court, however, refrains from
making any observations in respect of the criminal proceedings being
prosecuted against the writ petitioner. Observations, if any, made by us in the
present order would not influence the learned trial Court in the criminal
proceedings as they are confined to testing the legality and correctness of the
impugned order of penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the writ
petitioner in a departmental proceeding.
25. For all the above reasons, this Court therefore, is not inclined to
interfere in the impugned judgment whereby the penalty of dismissal from
service has been set aside with a direction to the respondent-employer to
reinstate him with consequential benefits. However, we are of the view that
the directions issued by the learned writ Court regarding his posting were
uncalled for. Such a decision is left to be taken by the employer in line with
settled principles of the Service Rules. This part of the impugned direction is,
therefore, set aside.
26. The instant appeal is disposed of in the manner and to the extent
indicated above.
As a sequel, interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending
application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(S. D. PURKAYASTHA), J (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
Munna S MUNNA SAHA Digitally signed by MUNNA SAHA
Date: 2025.03.20 14:19:20 +05'30'
