Tripura High Court
Shri Ruhi Chandra Tripura vs The State Of Tripura on 15 May, 2025
Page 1 of 6
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No. 689 of 2024
Shri Ruhi Chandra Tripura
S/O Shri Arjun Kumar Tripura.
Resident of Budhi Chandra Para,
Manubazer, P.O. Manubazer,
District South Tripura.
......Petitioner(s).
Versus
1. The State of Tripura
Through the Secretary, Department of Home, Government of
Tripura, Having office at Civil Secretariat,
New Capital Complex.
P.O. Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura.
2. Director General of Police,
Government of Tripura,
Having office at Fire Brigade Choumohani,
P.O. Agartala, West Tripura.
3. Commandant,
9th Bn Tripura State Rifles,
Government of Tripura,
Having office at Hichacherra,
P.O. Jolaibari, South Tripura.
4. Deputy Inspector General of Police, TSR(OPS-I)
Government of Tripura.
Having office at Srinagar, Near TV Tower.
Agartala, West Tripura.
5. Inspector General of Police (TSR-OPS)
Government of Tripura.
Having office at Police Head Quarter (PHQ).
Fire Brigade Choumohani, Agartala.
P.O. Agartala, West Tripura.
......Respondent(s).
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Tapash Datta Majumder, Sr. Adv.
: Ms. R. Debbarma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharyya, G.A.
Date of Hearing &
Date of Judgment : 15.05.2025
Whether fit for reporting: No
Page 2 of 6
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. Tapash Datta Majumder, learned senior
counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Kohinoor N.
Bhattacharyya, learned G.A. appearing for the State-respondents.
[2] It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as a
Constable in 9th BN TSR. On 13.10.2022, he was served with a
memorandum relating to initiation of a departmental proceeding
against him with the allegation that he had conducted second
marriage with one Smt. Rabi Laxmi Debbarma on 25.02.2022 at
Karbook without the consent of and intimation to his first wife.
Alongwith said memorandum, the article of charge, statement of
imputations of misconduct or misbehavior in support of article of
charge, list of documents and list of names of witnesses were
supplied to him. He thereafter submitted his written statement
against the charge.
[3] The enquiry officer after conducting the enquiry
submitted his report dated 12.08.2022 (Annexure-R/2) to the
Disciplinary Authority i.e. Commandant, 9th BN TSR (IR-IV),
Hichacherra, South Tripura. Thereafter, a provisional order dated
09.04.2023 (Annexure-5) based on said enquiry report was issued
to the petitioner by the Commandant giving him opportunity for
making representation on the proposed punishment of 'Removal
from service which shall not be a disqualification for future
employment under the Government' within 15 days from the date
of issue of said order. Thereafter, one representation was
submitted under Annexure-6 by the petitioner on 23.04.2023.
Thereafter, on consideration of said representation the Disciplinary
Authority passed the final order on 28.04.2023 by imposing the
major punishment of removal from service upon the petitioner
which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under
the Government. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred one appeal
which was also rejected on 21.10.2024 (Annexure-10) observing
that there was no procedural lecuna in conducting of Departmental
Proceeding and findings of the Enquiry Officer as well as
Disciplinary Authority were supported by the evidence and the
imposed penalty was also proportionate. However while appeal
was pending, challenging the said order of the Disciplinary
Authority imposing such penalty was challenged in the instant writ
petition and during pendency of the writ petition the appeal was
also disposed of by the Appellate Authority and therefore, the final
order passed in the appeal was also challenged in this writ
petition.
[4] During hearing Mr. Tapas Datta Majumder, learned
senior counsel mainly pressed two issues: firstly that in compliance
with the provision of sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of CCS (CCA) Rules as
applicable in case of TSR Personnel in terms of Rule 40 of Tripura
State Rifles (Discipline, Control, Service Conditions etc.)Rules,
1986, no copy of enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner
alongwith said provisional order dated 9.4.2023 incapacitating him
from giving proper reply against said provisional order, and
secondly, that during pendency of the disciplinary proceeding, by a
letter dated nil (Annexure-3 of the writ petition) the petitioner
applied for supply of documents as mentioned in Annexure-III of
the memorandum dated 13.10.2022 and the copy of the
statements of witnesses recorded during preliminary enquiry, but
the Enquiry Officer did not respond to said letter and also did not
furnish the documents as were asked for. According to Mr. Datta
Majumder, learned senior counsel the entire Departmental
Proceeding has been, therefore, vitiated for violation of principle of
nature justice and also for violation of statutory provision of Rule
15(2) supra and, therefore, the final order passed by the
Disciplinary Authority as well as the final order passed by the
Appellate Authority are required to be quashed.
[5] Learned G.A., on the other hand, submits that list of
documents as well as list of names of witnesses as were annexed
with the said memorandum dated 13.10.2022 were duly supplied
to the petitioner and copy of the preliminary enquiry report was
also supplied to him. According to learned G.A., there was no
violation of any provision of any statutory rule or principle of
nature justice in this case either by the disciplinary authority or by
the inquiring officer and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.
[6] This Court has given due consideration to the
submissions of learned counsel of both sides. So far the first point
of challenge as raised from the side of the petitioner that copy of
the enquiry report was not supplied to him, is concerned, sub-rule
2 of Rule 15 of CCS(CCA) Rules clearly mandates that Disciplinary
Authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the
report of the enquiry, along with it's own observation of proposed
punishment to the delinquent employee. In this regard, nothing
could be shown from the side of the respondents that copy of the
final enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner along with the
said provisional order dated on 09.04.2023 (Annexure-5). In the
counter affidavit, no direct assertion is also made by the
Respondent that said enquiry report was furnished to the
petitioner in due process, rather it has been asserted by the
respondents that the petitioner after completion of hearing of the
prosecution witnesses never demanded for supply of findings of
the enquiry authority. Therefore, in absence of any proof of supply
of copy of the final enquiry report to the petitioner, the final order
passed by the disciplinary authority imposing such punishment has
become illegal and ultra vires and, therefore, same is required to
be interfered with and quashed.
[7] In view of the above discussions, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned order dated 28.04.2023 passed by the
Disciplinary Authority (Annexure-7) and impugned order dated
21.10.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority (Annexure-10) are
quashed. The Disciplinary Authority is directed to decide the
matter afresh by furnishing copy of the final enquiry report to the
petitioner and by giving him opportunity to submit a fresh
representation there against. So far the second point of challenge
regarding non furnishing of documents and statement of witnesses
recorded during preliminary enquiry is concerned, the Disciplinary
Authority will dispose of the said petition of the petitioner in
accordance with law before taking any final decision in the said
disciplinary proceeding.
With such observations and directions, the writ petition
is disposed of.
The interim application(s), if any, also stands disposed
of.
JUDGE
SATABDI DUTTA DUTTA
Date: 2025.05.15 18:15:05 +05'30'
Riki
