Sanjoy Sarkar vs State Of Tripura And Ors.

[1] Petitioner has challenged an order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority as upheld by the appellate authority.

[2] Brief facts are as under :

The petitioner was offered appointment as a Riflemen(GD) in Tripura State Rifles(TSR) under order dated 31st December, 2005. According to the department, the petitioner had secured such appointment on the ground that he belonged to Scheduled Caste(SC) community. He, however, had to produce the SC certificate which he promised to do later. The department reminded him about non-production of the certificate despite which he did not supply his certificate of his belonging to SC community. Thereupon a departmental charge sheet was issued to him on 28th April, 2007 which contained three charges read as under :

"ARTICLES CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST NO.06020673 RIFLEMEN(GD)SANJOY SARKAR HQ/ADM COY OF 10TH BN TSR(IR-V) IN CONNECTION WITH DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS.

ARTICLE OF CHARGE NO - 1 : No.06020673 Riflemen(GD) Sanjoy Sarkar HQ/ADM Coy of 10th Bn TSR(IR-V) claimed that he is belongs to Scheduled Caste category at the time of interview which was held at Kumarghat on 13.05.2005 before the board under the chairmanship of Sri Uttam Majumder, TPS-I, the then Commandant 7th Bn. TSR (Now Superintendent of Police, North Tripura District) by producing a Panchayat Family Registration Certificate with assurance that he would be able to produce valid SC certificate. But he has failed to produce the valid SC certificate till to date. Thus the act of No.06020673 Rfn(GD) Sanjoy Sarkar amounts to fraudulent means of cheating.

ARTICLE OF CHARGE NO - 2 : No.06020673 Riflemen(GD) Sanjoy Sarkar HQ/ADM Coy of 10th Bn TSR joined in TSR on 20.01.2006 as a Riflemen(GD) against the existing vacancy of SC category vide Commandant 2nd Bn TSR office letter No.F.322/TSR- II/ESTT/RECT(Vac)/332 dated 31st December 2005 and he was asked in several time to produce valid SC certificate to prepare his Service Book. But he did not produce any valid SC certificate so far. Thus the act of No.06020673 Rfn(GD) Sanjoy Sarkar amounts to misconduct.

ARTICLE OF CHARGE NO - 3 : No.06020673 Riflemen(GD) Sanjoy Sarkar HQ/ADM Coy of 10th Bn TSR tried to obtain SC certificate from the concerned authority whereas the said Riflemen(GD) Sanjoy Sarkar and his whole family members are belongs to "Kapali" community with is notified as OBC category. Thus the act of No.06020673 Rfn(GD) Sanjoy Sarkar amounts to misconduct and further amounts to fraudulent means of cheating."

[3] According to the statement of the imputation of misconduct, the petitioner had appeared in the recruitment rally held on 13th May, 2005 at Kumarghat for selection to the post of Riflemen in TSR. His name was initially entered at Sl. No.23 in unreserved category. After qualifying in physical test he appeared in the oral test, during which he claimed that he belonged to SC category and in support of which he had produced a Panchayat Family Registration Certificate from the concerned Block which was signed by the Panchayat Secretary. He also assured the Chairman of the Recruitment Board that he would produce the valid SC certificate before the competent authority soon if he is selected. His request was considered and he was offered appointment to the post of Riflemen(GD) on SC vacancy but the petitioner failed to produce the SC certificate. It is further alleged that the petitioner had produced some photocopy of the Family Registration Certificate claiming that his parents belonged to SC category, however, from the inquiry it was learnt by the department that though the name of the father of the petitioner was recorded as SC category in family registration of the Block Development Officer's records, no documents in support of such recording were found.

[4] With these allegations, departmental inquiry was conducted. Inquiry officer submitted his report dated 22nd March, 2008. He held that the charges were not proved. The disciplinary authority, however, did not agree with this finding of the inquiry officer and at one stage, proceeded to pass an order of punishment. The High Court reversed it and provided that the copy of the inquiry officer's report be supplied to the petitioner and he may be allowed to make his representation. The disciplinary authority thereupon issued a provisional order of punishment on 2nd November, 2015 in which he cited his brief tentative reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the inquiry officer, supplying a copy of inquiry report and also opportunity to the petitioner to make his representation against the tentative view of the disciplinary authority. The petitioner made his representation. However, the disciplinary authority proceeded to pass the order of dismissal on 20th November, 2016 relevant portion of which reads as under :

"AND WHEREAS, I have carefully gone through the DP file, findings of the enquiry officer and the evidence on records, opinion of Law Department and opinion of state level scrutiny committee. Bases on the facts and circumstances of the case I came to the conclusion after applying my mind judiciously that No.06020673 Rfn(GD) Sanjoy arkar of 10th Bn TSR(IR-V) would be dismissed from the service. Hence, Provisional order of "Dismissal from service" was issued to No.06020673 Riflemen(GD) Sanjoy Sarkar 10th Bn TSR(IR-v) at his home address through special messenger and registered post vide this office order No.11742/F.DP-02/2007/TSR- X(IR-V/SS/Estt/2007 dated 02.11.2015 with direction as final opportunity for making representation on the penalty proposed against him and such representation, if any, should be made in writing or he may appear in person before the competent authority within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order but neither he submitted representation nor appeared before the undersigned till date.

NOW THEREFORE, I Shri Dilip Ray, TPS Gr.I Commandant, 10th Bn TSR(IR-V) being the disciplinary authority, after careful examination of the case considering all the facts, in exercising of powers conferred upon me under rule 12(1)(j) of the TSR Act, 1983 hereby impose major punishment of 'Dismissal from Service'.

The DP No.02/2007 DATED 23-05-2007 drawn up against No.06020673 Rfn(FD) Sanjoy Sarkar is hereby disposed off"

The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged this order before the appellate authority upon which he filed this petition.

[5] Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner had not committed any misconduct. He had applied for the post in question only as an unreserved category candidate. He had never claimed that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste. The authorities have wrongly punished the petitioner. He pointed out that the inquiry officer had held that the charges were not proved.

[6] On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate relied on materials on record and submitted that though initially the petitioner had filled up the form as a General Category candidate, after clearing the physical test he had produced a Xerox copy of a family report card claiming that he belonged to Scheduled Caste and ensured that he would produce the SC certificate in due course. It was on such basis that the interview committee had selected and offered appointment as an SC candidate. Despite repeated reminders, the petitioner failed to produce his caste certificate upon which departmental inquiry was instituted. On the basis of evidence on record, the disciplinary authority held that the charges were proved and the enquiry officer had committed an error in coming to the contrary conclusions. Before arriving at such conclusions the disciplinary authority had also recorded his tentative reasons and given an opportunity to the petitioner to make his representation.

[7] From the materials on record and submissions made before me, it can be seen that the petitioner has not raised any contentions of defect in conduct of the inquiry. In other words, it is not the case of the petitioner that the principles of natural justice or the statutory rules applicable were not followed while conducting the inquiry. Once this is so established, the question is of correctness of findings arrived at by the disciplinary authority in the course of the inquiry. The petitioner himself does not even claim to be an SC candidate. Only question was, did he claim to be so at the time of his selection and was it on such basis that he was offered appointment on a reserved post. These questions of facts have been gone into by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority and come to the conclusions against the petitioner.

[8] Through series of judgments of the Supreme Court it is by now well-settled that the findings of facts arrived at during the course of inquiry would not be open to interference by the High Court in exercise of the Writ jurisdiction unless such findings are shown to be perverse. Reference in this respect can be made to the decision of Supreme Court in case of Union of India Vs. Parma Nanda reported in AIR 1989 SC 1185. The disciplinary authority has recorded that despite opportunity being granted the petitioner had made no representation in response to the provisional order passed by him recording his tentative reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the inquiry officer.

In view of such ₹facts, petition deserves to be and hereby dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Rule made discharged.