High CourtsSingle Bench(2021) 09 TP CK 0006

Sanjit Debbarma vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Tripura High Court · Decided on 10 September 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Akil Kureshi, CJ
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Ppetition (C) No. 457 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 357 words

Akil Kureshi, CJ

Petitioner has challenged an order dated 14.06.2021 by which the Principal Secretary as a disciplinary authority has imposed a punishment of withholding of two increments for two years without cumulative effect. While issuing notice in the petition, it was highlighted that the main ground of challenge of the petitioner was that the disciplinary authority had sought and relied upon the advice of the TPSC which was in any case a statutory requirement, before passing the impugned order without providing a copy of the advice of the TPSC and permitting the petitioner to make a representation with respect to the same.

In this respect, in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents it is stated that:

"Thirdly, it is mentioned here that due to oversight copy of the concurrence of the TPSC was not provided to the petitioner."

Only on this ground of non-supply of copy of the advice of the TPSC to the delinquent and giving opportunity of making representation with respect to the contents thereof before taking into consideration for coming to the final conclusion, the impugned order must go. Learned counsel for the petitioner correctly points out that the law on the topic is sufficient to hear through the decisions of Supreme Court in case of Union of India and others vrs. S.K. Kapoor reported in (2011) 4 SCC 589 and Union of India and others vrs. R.P. Singh reported in (2014) 7 SCC 340.

Impugned order is set aside. The respondents shall provide a copy of the advice of the TPSC to the petitioner, enable the petitioner to make a representation with respect to the same and thereafter may pass fresh order in accordance with law. Entire exercise may be completed within four months from today. Since the impugned order is set aside only on this ground, I have not examined any of the other grounds of the petitioner. If the disciplinary authority passes a fresh order which is adverse to the petitioner, it would be open for the petitioner to challenge the same on all grounds available in law.

Petition disposed of accordingly.

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