Rajkumar Tripura vs State Of Tripura And Ors.

[1] Petitioner has challenged an order dated 16th July 2019, passed by the disciplinary authority and further order dated 13th March 2020, passed by the appellate authority by which the said authority granted partial relief to the petitioner against the order of disciplinary authority.

[2] Brief facts are as under :

The petitioner was visited with a charge sheet dated 10th July, 2014 for holding an inquiry under Rule 14 of Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules [CCS(CCA) Rules] as adopted by the State of Tripura. The charge sheet contained only one Article of Charge, namely that the petitioner who was a Tripura Forest Service, Grade - II Officer while working as Wildlife Warden, Trishna Wild Life Sanctuary, had committed financial irregularities by making adjustment of expenditure without carrying out execution of work properly. He had thereby committed misconduct and violated Rule 3 of Tripura Civil Services(Conduct) Rules, 1988. It was pointed out that during the petitioner's tenure three separate works of construction and maintenance were awarded at the said wildlife sanctuary. It was alleged that in one such contract work worth only Rs.1,43,000/- lakhs (rounded off) was executed whereas bill amount sanctioned was for Rs.2,17,000/-. In another contract, no work was executed despite which payments of Rs.1,44,000/- were made and in the third contract, there was improper adjustment of Rs.38,250/- towards cost of watering and weeding which was not done.

[3] A detailed inquiry was conducted upon completion of which the inquiry officer submitted his report dated 15th May, 2018. He held that the charge was proved. Copy of the inquiry officer's report was supplied to the petitioner and allowed to make representation which he did. The disciplinary authority after considering the report of the inquiry officer, other materials on record and the representation of the petitioner, passed an order on 17th July, 2019 in which he ordered recovery of sum of Rs.2,55,508/- and further imposed the punishment of withholding of the increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect. The petitioner challenged the order of disciplinary authority before the appellate authority. The appellate authority by the order dated 13th March 2020 modified the punishment by reducing the recovery amount up to Rs.38,250/- and the period for withholding of the increment to one year without future effect. These orders, the petitioner has challenged in the present petition.

[4] Appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel Mr. Arijit Bhowmik vehemently contended that the petitioner had not committed any misconduct despite which he has been visited with penalty. He submitted that as per the Government instructions, two separate penalties for the same misconduct cannot be imposed. He further submitted that the authorities have not examined the documents on record before passing the impugned orders.

[5] On the other hand, learned Government Advocate Mr. Debalaya Bhattacharya opposed the petition contending that the disciplinary authority has come to factual findings which are not open to challenge. Punishment is commensurate with the proved charges. In short, the petition may be dismissed.

[6] Learned counsel for the petitioner may be correct in pointing out that during the course of the inquiry no element of doubtful integrity has been established. That has to be the reason why the petitioner is visited with two minor penalties and not any major punishment. Nevertheless, when it is found from the materials on record that the petitioner who was working in the supervisory capacity, failed to ensure that payments for work not done are not released, he must take at least some blame for the public fund pilferage. In any case, the findings of the inquiry officer as confirmed by the disciplinary and appellate authority are not in challenge before me. That being the position, only question would be of the nature of penalty that should follow. Here also, the disciplinary authority enjoys considerable latitude and discretionary powers. We have noticed that the order passed by the disciplinary authority was toned-down by the appellate authority. Not only the recovery of loss was reduced but the period for withholding the increment was also reduced from two years to one year. There is no further scope for interference.

[7] The Government of India instructions referred to by Mr. Bhowmik copy of which is produced at Annexure - 12 does not mandate that two separate penalties cannot be imposed. In fact, it clarifies that there is no bar to award the penalty of recovery of loss along with other suitable penalty. This is precisely what has been done in the present case. The appellate authority has directed recovery of part of the amount of loss caused to the Government and also imposed a minor punishment of withholding of increment for one year.

In the result, petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Rule made discharged.