Bikas Deb vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Heard Mr. S.M.Chakraborty, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Sarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the State-respondents.

The petitioner by way of filing the present writ petition has challenged the legality and validity of the order of punishment of dismissal from service issued by the respondent No.3 vide order dated 03.01.2010 [Annexure-12 to the writ petition].

Brief facts of the case are as under:

A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner framing Articles of Charges alleging serious misconduct. The petitioner was handed over the copy of the Articles of Charges. Inquiry Officer was appointed. The petitioner was asked to file written representation. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer proceeded with the inquiry. In course of inquiry, witnesses were examined. The petitioner was also given all opportunities to defend his case. After completion of proceeding, the Inquiry Authority submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority had issued a provisional order of punishment vide order dated 07.12.2009 [Annexure-7 to the writ petition]. But with the said order, copy of the report furnished by the Inquiry Authority was not furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner had submitted written representation to the Disciplinary Authority to furnish the copy of the nquiry report so that he can controvert the findings of the Inquiry Officer. After receipt of the said representation, the Disciplinary Authority had supplied a copy of the inquiry report vide communication dated 21.12.2009. After receipt of the said inquiry report, the petitioner had dealt with all the imputations levelled against him, the findings of the Inquiry Officer and thereafter submitted his written representation to the Disciplinary Authority. Ultimately, the Disciplinary Authority after carefully examining the representation rejected the plea of the petitioner and imposed penalty of removal from service of the petitioner. The petitioner preferred statutory appeal. The Appellate Authority also had agreed with the findings and decisions arrived at by the disciplinary authority.

Mr. S.M.Chakraborty, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in course of hearing has confined his submission to the communication dated 21.12.2009 wherein, according to learned Sr. counsel, the petitioner was not afforded sufficient opportunity to deal with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and only asked the petitioner to confine his reply about the proposed punishment imposed upon him. It leads me to take note of the communication dated 21.12.2009. For the sake of convenience, I like to reproduce the said communication dated 21.12.2009 [Annexure-10 to the writ petition] here-in-below, in extenso:

"GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RSV)(WEST) TRIPURA:AGARTALA

No.32010-11/SP/RSV/WD/09

Dt.21/12/2009.

To

C/91 Bikash Deb, S/o Biswanath Deb, Vill-East Badharghat (Sree Palli), P.O. Madhuban, P/S Amtali.

(Through O/C AMT P/S).

Find enclosed herewith the copy of findings containing pages from Sl.No.1 to 14 in c/w D/P No.7/07 dated, 21-5-07 was drawn up against you, as your representation dated, 14-12-09 demanded for the copy of findings of R/O for submission of your reply on proper way in respect of the provisional order vide this office No.30890/SP/RSV/WD/DP/09 dated,7-12-09.

You are hereby asked to submit representation against the punishment proposed either in writing or in personal hearing within 7(seven) days from the date of issue of this letter.

Superintendent of Police West Tripura, Agartala."

On plain reading of the aforesaid communication, even if, for argument sake, one may find insufficiency or ambiguity in the language but that ambiguity was removed when the Disciplinary Authority in response to representation had furnished the inquiry report to the petitioner so that he could confront the inquiry report and the proposed punishment.

Having situated thus, I have perused the reply/written representation of the petitioner dated 14.12.2009 [Annexure-11 to the writ petition]. A bare perusal of the said representation, it is found that the petitioner has elaborately dealt with all the facts as evinced in the inquiry report. He also has disputed to the findings of the Inquiry Officer. I have also considered as to how the Disciplinary Authority has appreciated the written representation dated 14th December,2009 submitted by the petitioner. While dealing with the said representation of the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority has meticulously examined the findings of the Inquiry Officer as well as the reply submitted by the petitioner and after considering and scrutinizing the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the reply, the Disciplinary Authority has held that the Articles of Charges as framed against the petitioner has been proved and imposed major penalty dismissing the petitioner from service.

In this backdrop, I am unable to agree with the submission of Mr. Chakraborty, learned Sr. counsel that the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity to defend his case as the petitioner was asked to confine his reply within the issue of punishment. Lastly, Mr. Chakraborty, learned Sr. counsel has submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted from the criminal charge by a competent criminal Court. It is now well settled that standard proof in recording a finding of conviction in a criminal proceeding is distinct and different from a departmental proceeding. Strict Rule of Evidence Act is not a sine qua non in a disciplinary proceeding. The charge of criminal wrongdoing has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt whereas the disciplinary proceeding being a domestic enquiry is governed by a preponderance of probability. This is not the case here that the Disciplinary Authority has mechanically rejected the representation of the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority has given sufficient reasons before arriving at the decision to dismiss the petitioner from service. The grounds as agitated by the petitioner in his representation dated 14th December, 2009 were well taken off by the Disciplinary Authority which was ultimately agreed upon by the appellate authority. Being provided with all opportunities, the petitioner cannot complain of breach of the principles of natural justice. This Court in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not sit in appeal and re-appreciate the evidence.

Situated thus, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.