Amar Chan Debnath vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Heard Mr. A.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A., appearing for the State-respondents.

By way of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.05.2015, whereby and whereunder, the respondent No.4, Commandant of 11th Battalion, T.S.R (IR-VII) had appointed Sri Amarjit Debbarma, Deputy Commandant as inquiry officer to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner-Amar Chan Debnath on the ground that when the petitioner was exonerated from the charges framed against him, the second disciplinary proceeding cannot be initiated against him on the basis of the same set of charges.

The facts, in brief, are that, the petitioner was put to face a Departmental proceeding on the following articles of charges:-

"ARTICLE-I

No.97050098 NK(Opr) Amar Chan Debnath of 11th Bn. TSR while posted at Gariadafadar post, 11th BN TSR absented himself on 30.10.2013 at 0900 hours without any permission of authority which is gross misconduct under section 12 of TSR Act'1983.

ARTICLE-II

On 30.10.2013, No.98050098 NK(Opr) Amar Chan Debnath of 11th Bn. TSR HQr, Gokulnagar un-authorizedly and assaulted physically to Nb/Sub(Sig) Anup DE, 11th Bn. TSR at about 2000 hours in his office chamber and thereafter he ran away from the spot hurriedly. As a result, Nb/Sub(Sig) Anup De was seriously injured and undergone major operation at ILS Hospital, Agartala. Such type of activity form the said NK(Opr) being a member of the disciplined force is a gross misconduct under Section 12 of TSR Act'1983."

Inquiry authority was appointed by the disciplinary authority. In course of inquiry, as many as 10 witnesses were produced by the department concerned. The petitioner could not appoint any defence counsel, but he participated in the proceeding.

After completion of recording evidence, the inquiry authority held that the charges framed against the delinquent-petitioner have not been proved and he was accordingly exonerated from the said charges. All on a sudden, the disciplinary-authority i.e., the respondent No.4, had issued another order dated 10.05.2015 again proposing to initiate disciplinary proceeding on the same set of article of charges and also had appointed an inquiry authority as aforestated on the ground that he was not satisfied with the findings of the inquiry authority absolving the petitioner from the same articles of charges framed against him and on the ground that the procedure adopted by the inquiry authority in that proceeding was not in accordance with law.

The report of the inquiry officer in the second disciplinary proceeding was passed on 27.08.2016 and the petitioner was informed accordingly. In the said enquiry proceeding also the inquiry authority did not find anything adverse against the petitioner-delinquent since according to the inquiry authority the charges framed against the petitioner delinquent has not been proved.

I have perused the findings of the inquiry authority. The prayer of the petitioner for setting aside the impugned order for initiation of the second disciplinary proceeding, according to me, finds, merit.

Firstly, the disciplinary authority has committed an error in law by way of initiating another denovo inquiry on the same set of charges. Secondly, the enquiry authority while prosecuting the first enquiry held that none of the charges framed against the petitioner had been proved.

I also have perused the evidence recorded by the inquiry authority in course of proceeding. The second inquiry initiated by the disciplinary authority had also been concluded with the findings that the petitioner-delinquent was not guilty of the charges framed against him.

Accordingly, the challenge arrayed by the writ petitioner in the instant case deserves to be allowed. The impugned order dated 10th May, 2015 issued by the Commandant, 11th BN, TSR, respondent No.4 is set aside.

In view of the above observation, the entire charges levelled against the petitioner-delinquent is failed and in the result, the writ petition is allowed and thus disposed of.