Pradip Debnath vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Heard Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents.

The petitioner, while working as the Special Police Officer (SPO) was put the victim [the name withheld] to threat and sexual assault and on complaint, a police case was registered against him being ABS P.S. Case No.06 of 2015 under Section 376/506 of the IPC and he was arrested in that case. Thereafter, the final report charge-sheeting the petitioner was filed and cognizance was taken against him under Section 376/506 of the IPC. The matter was committed to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kamalpur and the charge was framed against him in Case No.ST 38(NT/KMP)/2015.

By the discharge order No.1680-85/SP(DIB)/DLI/JWH/15 dated 12.02.2015 [Annexure-2 to the writ petition], the petitioner was discharged from the service on the ground of serious mis-conduct with effect from 04.02.2015(afternoon). When the said order dated 12.02.2015 was passed by the Superintendent of Police, Dhalai District, Jawaharnagar, the petitioner was in custody but later on, the petitioner filed an appeal on 20.12.2016 [Annexure-3 to the writ petition] challenging the said order on the ground that he did not commit any mis-conduct and he was falsely implicated in the said case. The said appeal was dismissed by the order dated 20.01.2017 [Annexure-4 to the writ petition].

Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the order of discharge has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice.

Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents has fairly submitted that the Superintendent of Police does not have any power to pass the order of discharge of a Special Police Officer (SPO) in terms of the order under No.48301-343/F.VDP(1)-Police/2000 dated 04.10.2001 [Annexure-R/1 to the reply filed by the respondents].

There cannot be any amount of dispute that the petitioner does not hold any substantive post. But when someone is discharge from the service, on a serious allegation, that person has a right to have a say in his defence but that opportunity was not given. That apart, the said order dated 04.10.2001 has clearly provided as follows :

"In case of unsatisfactory service, indiscipline or any other conduct unbecoming of an SPO, he may be discharged by D.M. on a report by S.P."

Therefore, this order of discharge is grossly illegal and accordingly, it is set aside.

It appears further that the petitioner has been honourably acquitted from the charge under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C. by the Sessions Judge and having regard to this, the respondents are directed to induct the petitioner in service forthwith and the formal order shall be passed within a period of 30(thirty) days from today, but the petitioner will not get back wages.

Having observed thus, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.