Court On Its Own Motion vs Unknown
2026 Latest Caselaw 2574 Tri

Tripura High Court

Court On Its Own Motion vs Unknown on 16 April, 2026

                                 Page 1 of 2


                       HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                             AGARTALA
                         Cont.Cas(C) No.09 of 2026
                        Court on its own motion
                                Versus
Sri Anindya Kumar Bhattacharya
                                                          .........Respondent(s)

For Court on its own motion(s): None.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saktimoy Chakraborti, Advocate General, Mrs. Pinki Chakraborty, Advocate.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT Order 16/04/2026

Heard learned Advocate General in the matter.

2. A suo motu Contempt Case was initiated after noticing that the

respondent Sri Anindya Kumar Bhattacharya had, instead of going into only

the aspect of proportionality of punishment as directed by this Court in the

Order dt.02.04.2024 in WA No.108/2023, committed a patent error of law in

interfering with a finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)

No.835/2021 holding that Charge V was not proved.

3. The Division Bench had remitted the matter to him to pass a fresh

order on the quantum of penalty noting that Charge IV alone stood proved,

and so the said official could not have passed an order on 18.07.2024 holding

that both Charges IV and V were proved, and imposing a major penalty of

withholding three increments with cumulative effect along with additional

punishment of recovery of loss amount of Rs.21,600/- from the pay of the

petitioner in WP(C) No.677/2024.

4. The said official has now filed an affidavit admitting that he had

committed a mistake, and that he had misconstrued the Order of the Division

Bench passed on 02.04.2024 in WA No.108/2023 while passing the

punishment order on 18.07.2024 against the petitioner.

5. He pleaded that the mistake was totally unintentional and bona

fide, and he had no intention to violate and flout the solemn Order passed by

this Court.

6. He has also tendered unconditional apology for the said mistake,

and prayed for exoneration of the charge in the Contempt Case.

7. Since the officer in question had accepted his mistake, and has

tendered unconditional apology, we discharge the Contempt Case.

8. It is accordingly closed.

(BISWAJIT PALIT, J) (M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ)

Pijush/

PIJUSH KANTI NAG Digitally signed by PIJUSH KANTI NAG Date: 2026.04.16 15:14:25 +05'30'