Sri Partha Sinha vs The State Of Tripura
2025 Latest Caselaw 1123 Tri

Tripura High Court

Sri Partha Sinha vs The State Of Tripura on 11 September, 2025

                          HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                AGARTALA
                            WP(C) No.275 of 2024

Sri Partha Sinha,
S/o Late Nandalal Sinha,
C/o Sri Rajib Sinha, resident of Dhaleswar,
Near BoC, P.O. Agartala, West Tripura,
799001, West Tripura.
                                                                   .....Petitioner(s)
                                        Versus

1. The State of Tripura, represented by Secretary, GA Printing and
Stationary Department, Government of Tripura, Agartala, West Tripura.
2. The Director, GA Printing and Stationary Department, Government of
Tripura, Agartala.

                                                                 ----Respondent(s)

      For Petitioner(s)           :      Mr. Prahalad Debnath, Adv.

      For Respondent(s)           :      Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Addl. GA

      Date of hearing
      and delivery of
      Judgment & Order             :     11.09.2025

      Whether fit for
      reporting                    :     NO


                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
                            Judgment & Order (Oral)

Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Prahalad Debnath appearing on behalf of

the petitioner. Also heard Learned Addl. GA, Mr. Mangal Debbarma

appearing on behalf of the respondents-State.

2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the

following reliefs:

"(a) admit this petition;

(b) call for the records;

(c) issue writ in the nature of mandamus calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be granted voluntary retirement from service as per prayer dated 27.07.2023.

(d) issue writ in the nature of certiorari calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the memorandum dated 20.10.2023 should not be declared bad in law and quashed.

(e) Issue writ in the nature of Certiorari calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the order of punishment dated 08.06.2023 should not be set aside and quashed.

(f) Issue writ in the nature of Certiorari calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the disciplinary proceedings as well as charges leveled against the petitioner vide Memorandum dated 17-03-2021 should not be set aside and quashed.

(g) Pass any other order/orders which your Lordship deem fit and proper;"

3. Taking part in the hearing, Learned Counsel for the petitioner

has drawn the attention of this Court that on 23.07.1987, the petitioner

joined in the GA Printing and Stationary Department under Govt. of Tripura

as LDC and after that he was promoted to the post of UDC. The petitioner

on 05.12.2003 took a loan of Rs.1,86,000/- for construction of his house

after mortgaging the plot of land. Thereafter, in the year 2013 the

petitioner made a prayer to get back the original deed which remained in

the Department on condition to return back the same. However, due to

financial problem he sold out the land. Thereafter, in the year 2015 a

departmental proceeding was initiated against him as he did not return

back the deed and in the departmental proceeding, after inquiry, the

petitioner was imposed punishment of withholding of 2(two) increments

with cumulative effect by order dated 08.06.2023. In the meantime, the

Department recovered loan money with interest from him and he was given

clearance certificate vide letter dated 07.09.2022(Annexure- 2 to the writ

petition). Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the

order dated 08.06.2023 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) was not good in

law but challenging the same punishment the petitioner did not prefer any

appeal to the Departmental Appellate Authority or to any other forum.

On 27.07.2023, the petitioner submitted a prayer to the

Department for voluntary retirement from service on the ground of his

illness w.e.f 01.11.2023 and further prayed to deduct all the dues pending,

if any, from his DCRG and Leave Salary (Annexure-4 to the writ petition).

But, the Department instead of accepting his prayer for voluntary

retirement initiated another departmental proceeding vide memorandum

dated 17.10.2023 and issued another memorandum dated 20.10.2023

denying his voluntary retirement (Annexure-5 and 6 to the writ petition

respectively). It was further submitted by Learned Counsel that the

petitioner rendered service for more than 35 years in the Department and

as he was/is suffering from illness, he is unable to continue with his job.

So, the petitioner urged before the Government to accept his prayer for

voluntary retirement. So, under the compelling circumstances the

petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the reliefs as stated

above.

4. The writ petition was contested by the respondent authority

denying the assertions of the writ petitioner. However, the respondent

authority admitted that in the departmental proceeding, the disciplinary

authority found him guilty and imposed minor penalty of withholding 2

(two) increments with cumulative effect by order dated 08.06.2023 but the

said order of the departmental authority has not been challenged by the

petitioner either to the Appellate Authority or to any other forum. It was

further submitted by the respondent authority that another proceeding by

this time has been initiated against the petitioner on the ground that

although the petitioner prayed for 31 days commuted leave on medical

ground but he did not appear before the Standing Medical Board and

accordingly, a memorandum dated 25.08.2023 was issued upon the

petitioner and he was asked to submit his reply against the said

memorandum. On 05.09.2023, the petitioner submitted his reply against

the memorandum dated 25.08.2023 but the Department was not satisfied

with the reply of the petitioner so, the disciplinary authority appointed

Commissioner of Departmental Inquiries as the inquiring authority to

decide the article of charges levelled against the petitioner on the ground of

misbehaviour and misconduct which is still pending for disposal and due to

the pendency of the departmental proceeding the Department is not in a

position to accept the prayer of voluntary retirement. Learned Addl. GA

further submitted that no relief was sought for by the present petitioner

challenging the subsequent departmental proceeding before this Court.

5. In reply to the submission made by Learned Addl. GA for the

State-respondents, Learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that

the petitioner is suffering from continuous illness and he is not in a position

to continue with his job due to his physical ailments. However, due to the

pendency of the departmental proceeding wherein he has been falsely

imputed, the Department is intentionally not accepting the prayer of

voluntary retirement submitted by him. So, Learned Counsel for the

petitioner urged for quashing the departmental proceeding and to direct the

Department to accept his prayer for voluntary retirement.

6. Learned Addl. GA, Mr. Debbarma appearing on behalf of the

State-respondents opposing the submission made by the Learned Counsel

for the petitioner submitted that the Department is eager to accept the

prayer of the petitioner for his voluntary retirement but due to

departmental proceeding, the Department is not in a position to accept his

prayer. So, Learned Addl. GA fairly submitted that a direction may be given

to the departmental authority to conclude the proceeding and thereafter to

accept the prayer of the petitioner for voluntary retirement from service.

7. I have heard both the sides at length and perused the

documents annexed with the writ petition and also the documents annexed

with the counter affidavit submitted by the State-respondents.

8. It is on record that the petitioner is serving as UDC under GA

Printing and Stationary Department, Govt. of Tripura. Initially, a

departmental proceeding was drawn up against him and thereafter he was

found guilty and the disciplinary authority imposed minor penalty of

withholding 2 (two) increments with cumulative effect. But, challenging

that order of the disciplinary authority no appeal was preferred by the

petitioner to the appellate forum. By this time the Department also has

issued clearance certificate regarding the loan which he obtained from the

Department which appears from the documents annexed with the writ

petition. But, on the ground of medical leave another departmental

proceeding was initiated against him which is still pending for disposal

resulting which the Department is not accepting the prayer of voluntary

retirement of the petitioner dated 27.07.2023 wherein he prayed for

voluntary retirement from service w.e.f. 01.11.2023.

9. I have also gone through the article of charges of the

subsequent departmental proceeding.

10. It is the admitted position that due to pendency of the

proceeding the Department has not acted upon the prayer of the petitioner

dated 27.07.2023 but at the same time it is also true that due to pendency

of the departmental proceeding for uncertain period, the prayer of the

petitioner cannot be kept reserved for indefinite period since he has

expressed his unwillingness to continue with his job due to physical

ailments. As such, it appears that a direction should be given to the

departmental authorities to conclude the proceeding within a limited period

of time and thereafter to accept the prayer for voluntary retirement

submitted by the petitioner to the Department.

11. In the result, the present writ petition is disposed of with a

direction to the respondent authority to take initiative for conclusion of the

pending departmental proceeding drawn up against the present petitioner

within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of the copy of

this judgment, failing which the departmental proceeding shall

automatically be terminated. The respondent authority, thereafter, shall

dispose of the prayer of the petitioner regarding voluntary retirement

submitted on 27.07.2023 within the next further period of 1(one) month.

With this observation, the present writ petition stands disposed

of.

JUDGE

Snigdha

MOUMIT Digitally signed by MOUMITA DATTA

A DATTA Date: 2025.09.12 18:37:34 +05'30'