Laxman Satnami vs State Of Tripura And Ors

[1] The petitioner has challenged an order dated 26th April, 2014 passed by the disciplinary authority imposing punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner upon establishment of charge of long unauthorised absence from duty.

[2] Brief facts are as under:

The petitioner joined the Tripura State Rifles (for short, TSR) as a Rifleman(GD) on 31.10.1998. When he was posted at 1st Bn. TSR at Gokulnagar, he availed of 30 days' earned leave between 22.12.2011 to 20.01.2012. He was supposed to resume duty on 21.01.2012. He did not resume duty nor intimated to the department the reasons for his absence. Communications were issued to him to resume duty. For his continuous absence without leave, a charge sheet was issued on 10th January, 2013 alleging that the petitioner had remained absent unauthorisedly from 21.01.2012 onwards.

[3] The record would suggest that though the petitioner was served with the charge sheet, he neither filed a reply nor participated during the departmental inquiry. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report whereupon the disciplinary authority issued a provisional order dated 17th January, 2014 proposing to impose a punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner and further providing that the period of absence would be treated as dies-non. Again, despite communication of this provisional order by the department to the petitioner he made no representation. Eventually, therefore, the disciplinary authority passed the dismissal order dated 26th April, 2014 imposing the above punishment. Once again, the petitioner did not react to the said order for a long time till he preferred an appeal before the appellate authority on 04.11.2016. Such an appeal was dismissed as time barred. His further revision petition was also not entertained on the same ground whereupon the petitioner has preferred this petition.

[4] Appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel Mr. Biswanath Majumder submitted that the petitioner had suffered from a serious heart attack for which he had to be treated at G.B.P. Hospital, Agrtala and on account of which the petitioner could not report for duty. His absence was thus not wilful. The department did not take into consideration this important aspect before imposing punishment on the petitioner. Counsel submitted that in any case, the punishment of dismissal from service is excessive. In this context, he relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Case of Central Industrial Security Force and others Vrs. Abrar Ali: reported in (2017) 4 SCC 507. Counsel, lastly contended that charge sheet was issued under CCS CCA Rules and the punishment was imposed in exercise of powers under Section 12 of the Tripura State Rifles Act, 1983 (for short, the Act), which was wholly impermissible.

[5] On the other hand, Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned Govt. Advocate opposed the petition contending that the petitioner was absent from duty for over 370 days. Even after service of a charge sheet, the petitioner resumed duties for a short period and again remained absent without leave. By the time being the Inquiry Officer drew his report, the petitioner had remained absent unauthorisedly for more than 700 days. After following proper procedure disciplinary authority imposed the punishment. The petitioner did not even participate in the inquiry. He merely forwarded a few documents claiming illness. These documents pertaining to the treatment taken by the petitioner from private doctors and suggested lower back defect and not heart ailment as suggested. He submitted that power to impose the punishment of dismissal flows from section 12 of the Act. The procedure for imposing punishment is prescribed under CCS CCA Rules.

[6] The documents on record would suggest that the petitioner who was engaged as Rifleman in TSR absented from duty without leave for a period in excess of 370 days. All throughout, he neither sought leave nor intimated to the department the reasons for his absence. Eventually, the department issued a charge sheet. The departmental proceedings also proceeded ex-parte since the petitioner did not participate. During the pendency of the inquiry petitioner resumed duty for a short period and again absented from duty without leave or intimation. By the time, the Inquiry Officer drew the report the petitioner was again on unauthorised absence for a long period.

[7] It was in such a background that the disciplinary authority first passed a provisional order of punishment proposing to dismiss the petitioner from service and treating the period of absence from duty as dies-non. Again, the petitioner did not respond to this provisional order of punishment, upon which the final order as proposed was passed. Even against this order the petitioner did not promptly prefer an appeal taking more than two years to file the appeal.

[8] Thus at all stages, the petitioner showed utter disregard and unwillingness to discharge duties or to report sickness if he was genuinely, on account of physical incapacity unable to perform his duties. The department thus had no choice, but to conclude departmental proceedings ex-parte.

[9] I do not find that in background of such facts the disciplinary authority has committed any error which requires interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. What should be the appropriate punishment for proved misconduct must depend on facts of each case. The petitioner was engaged as a Rifleman. The petitioner was discharging duties in a disciplined force. His long unauthorised absence, therefore, cannot be glossed over. It is true that in the charge sheet there was no reference to the provisions of the Act. However, this Act can best be a technicality. The power to impose punishment flows both from Section 12 of the Act as well as CCS CCA Rules. Before imposing any punishment procedure in consonance with principles of natural justice had to be followed. I do not find any breach of the procedure or breach of principles of natural justice.

[10] In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.