Arun Chandra Das vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the departmental charge-sheet dated 16.01.2020, copy of which is produced at Annexure-5 to the petition. By way of a consequential prayer, the petitioner has prayed that his pay and allowances be regularized for the past period.

These prayers arise in following background:

Petitioner is working as a Lecturer, presently posted at District Institute of Education and Training (DIET, for short), Kailashahar. When the petitioner was working as a Principal In-charge, DIET, Kailashahar, a criminal complaint was lodged against him on 30.07.2008 alleging commission of offence under Section 409 of IPC. This culminated into a criminal case being G.R. No.284 of 2008 which was conducted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unakoti Judicial District. In the said case, according to the prosecution during the period between 04.04.2006 to 07.03.2007 when the petitioner was posted as Principal of DIET, Kailashahar, he was entrusted with Government money amounting to Rs.11,84,035/- for meeting various expenses, such as electricity bills, expenses for conducting teachers training programs, for construction of language laboratory etc. It was alleged that the petitioner drew a sum of Rs.3,41,694/- from the bank account maintained in the Tripura Gramin Bank by issuing cheques to himself. He further withdrew a sum of Rs.60,589/- from the said bank for making payment of electricity charges which he did not pay. He also drew a sum of Rs.82,000/- from the bank for teachers training programme but did not make the payment to the teachers. A sum of Rs.1,95,758/- was withdrawn from the bank for the purpose of making payment of telephone bills which were not paid. A further sum of Rs.4,97,500/- was drawn from the bank for the purpose of establishing language laboratory which was not done. It was thus alleged that the petitioner had misappropriated Government money amounting to Rs.11,84,035/-. This embezzlement of Government fund was detected when the audit was conducted of the said institution which revealed that the petitioner had misappropriated the said sum. An F.I.R. was, therefore, lodged before the concerned police station which culminated into the said criminal proceedings.

The said criminal case remained pending for a substantial period of time before the magisterial Court. In the meantime, the petitioner was placed under suspension and thereafter the order of suspension was revoked. The department did not issue a departmental charge-sheet, presumably not to precipitate simultaneous departmental and criminal proceedings. Eventually, the learned Magistrate rendered his judgment dated 07.09.2018 in which he held that the charge against the petitioner was not proved. The petitioner was accordingly acquitted.

Subsequently, the department issued the impugned charge-sheet in which there are three charges levelled against the petitioner. Under Charge Article-I, it was alleged that the petitioner while working as a Head of Office and Drawing and Disbursing Officer of DIET between 01.06.2005 to 07.03.2007 had misappropriated Government funds amounting to Rs.11,84,035/- which was meant for meeting with various expenses. Under Charge Article-II, it was alleged that the petitioner intentionally issued seven cheques drawn on Tripura Gramin Bank and other eleven cheques drawn on Tripura State Cooperative Bank though he knew that funds for withdrawal of the amounts in question were not available. Resultantly, these cheques were dishonoured and the banks collected service charges. In Charge Article-III, it was alleged that the petitioner while functioning as a Head of Office and Drawing and Disbursing Officer of DIET, Kailashahar, he had violated the provisions of DFPRT, 1994 by splitting the furniture invoices into 52 numbers which was done to avoid the requirement of sanction from higher authority.

This charge-sheet the petitioner has challenged in the present petition mainly on two grounds. Firstly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the departmental inquiry has been instituted after long delay. The allegations pertain to the period between the years 2005 to 2007. The present charge-sheet which is issued in the year 2020 is thus grossly belated. The petitioner would be severely handicapped in his defence concerning allegations which are more than decade old. Secondly, the petitioner having already been acquitted by a competent criminal Court, the department cannot inquire into the charges concerning the same allegations. Counsel submitted that the incident which was the subject matter of the criminal case and in which the petitioner was acquitted was the same on the basis of which the department has now issued the charge-sheet. The witnesses are common. The criminal Court has honourably acquitted the petitioner. The department, therefore, now cannot independently inquire into the same incident.

In support of his contentions, counsel for the petitioner relied on following decisions: State of Madhya Pradesh vrs. Bani Singh reported in 1990 (Suppl.1) SCC 738; State of Andhra Pradesh vrs. N. Radhakishan reported in (1998) 4 SCC 154; and Chandmohan Saha vrs. State of Tripura & others reported in 2008 (5) GLR 573.

On the other hand, learned Government Advocate Mr. Debalay Bhattacharjee opposed the petition contending that the acquittal of the petitioner in a criminal case would not prevent the department from inquiring into the angle of misconduct. The department awaited the completion of the criminal proceedings before issuance of charge-sheet. There is thus no delay in issuing the departmental charge-sheet. In any case, only on this ground, the departmental proceedings cannot be set aside at the threshold. What would be the effect of delay, if any, can be examined only during the course of the departmental proceedings.

Having thus heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused documents on record, I do not find that in the present case the departmental inquiry can be quashed at this stage. The petitioner was the Head of Office and Drawing and Disbursing Officer. The allegations against him are extremely serious, of having misappropriated Government funds in excess of Rs.11 lakhs while working as a Head of the Office and Drawing and Disbursing Officer. According to the department, the petitioner withdrew sizable amounts from various bank accounts from the funds meant for public spending. Having withdrawn such sums, the petitioner never incurred the expenditure for which the withdrawals were made. Inquiry into such serious allegations cannot be scuttled on technical grounds. If the petitioner is innocent as he claims to be, he must face the departmental charge-sheet. The grounds of delay in issuance of the charge-sheet or acquittal in the criminal proceedings would not persuade me to quash the charge-sheet even before the departmental inquiry is completed. Firstly, as noted, the department was within its right to await the outcome of the criminal proceedings before issuance of the charge-sheet to avoid the allegation of carrying on parallel proceedings before the criminal Court as well as departmentally. Mere passage of time in issuance of the charge-sheet, therefore, would not be sufficient to quash the charge-sheet. Further, in a case like this, the petitioner must also demonstrate prejudice in his defence on account of delayed issuance of the charge-sheet. Till the year 2018 the criminal case was pending against the petitioner. He cannot claim loss of documents, memory or material which would hamper his defence in the departmental proceedings.

Likewise, the effect of the acquittal of the petitioner in a criminal case cannot be judged in isolation. As is well settled, in criminal proceedings standard of proof insisted is one of proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt, whereas the departmental proceedings proceed on preponderance of probabilities. Further, departmental proceedings do not have to confirm with strict principles of the law of evidence and other technicalities. Not only the acquittal, but the nature of acquittal and various aspects considered by a criminal Court while acquitting an accused would be relevant while one examines the effect of such acquittal on departmental proceedings. I have gone through the judgment rendered by the criminal Court in which the petitioner is acquitted. Since the departmental proceedings are pending, I would not like to make any further observations with respect to the nature of acquittal recorded by the learned Judge. Suffice it to say, the petitioner must face the full-fledged departmental proceedings and cannot take shelter of his acquittal in the criminal case to seek quashing of the departmental inquiry even before it is completed. Further, as noted, the departmental charge-sheet has two more elements of the petitioner having drawn cheques on the banks without sufficient funds whereby exposing the Government to service charges and more importantly having purchased furniture by breaking down the expenditure in order to avoid obtaining sanction from the higher authority. I am not suggesting that I am convinced about the correctness of these allegations. I am only suggesting that there are additional allegations which the petitioner is facing in the pending departmental proceedings which were not the subject matter of the criminal case.

The decisions cited by the counsel for the petitioner would not apply in the present case. In case of Bani Singh (supra) there was huge delay in initiation of departmental proceedings without any excuse. In such a background the proceedings were quashed. In case of N. Radhakishan (supra) the court found that there was unexplained delay of over 10 years in concluding the departmental inquiry and for which the delinquent was not responsible. The inquiry was therefore quashed. In case of Chandmohan Saha (supra) the court noted that the delinquent was acquitted in criminal court honourably. Departmental inquiry which was initiated while he was in service was continued after his retirement. He was kept under suspension for long period of time all through. In such a background it was held that permitting the inquiry to continue would be unfair and unjust.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the petitioner is not getting the regular salary and the current salary being drawn is almost one-fourth of the full salary that the petitioner should receive if he was not facing the departmental proceedings and this position is going on since 13 years since the inception of the criminal case. While, therefore, not interfering with the departmental proceedings at this stage, I do find that there is a need for showing urgency in completion of such proceedings. If the petitioner is found guilty of the charges levelled against him, he must face his appropriate punishment. On the other hand, if he is to be exonerated, he must be restored his full honour. Under the circumstances, it is directed that the respondents shall complete the departmental inquiry within a period of six months from today by passing final order. The petitioner shall cooperate with such expeditious disposal of the departmental inquiry.

Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.