Santosh Shil vs State Of Tripura And Ors

1) Heard Mr. S. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. P. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-TRTC and Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A., appearing for the State-respondent.

2) The simple question arises in this writ petition is that the writ petitioner being an employee of the respondent No.2 i.e., respondent-TRTC, was within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) from the post of Lower Division Clerk(LDC). But, at the time of his promotion, there was a departmental proceeding against him for misappropriation of Govt. funds. After conclusion of the departmental proceeding, the writ petitioner was found guilty and as a result, he had to refund the misappropriated amount.

3) Mr. S. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since the petitioner had repaid the money for which he was held guilty, he is entitled to get promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk.

4) Mr. P. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-TRTC has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to get promotion as he is held guilty for misappropriation of money, which has been proved in the departmental proceeding, and the same was recovered. So, the respondent No.2 is not at all interested to promote such type of employee for the benefit and interest of respondent-TRTC. Further, the respondent No.2 feels that such employee will cause loss to the Corporation, which is already in bad shape.

5) Mr. P. Datta, learned counsel further submits that there is no Departmental Promotion Committee and there is no proposal for initiation of any process of promotion in the Corporation.

6) At this Juncture, Mr. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the memorandum dated 24.01.2014 (Annuexre-10 to the writ petition), wherein one Sri Bidya Kumar Debbarma, Bus Conductor, also faced departmental proceeding initiated against him and he was later promoted. But after perusal of the said memorandum, I have noticed that the said departmental proceeding initiated against Sri Bidya Kumar Debbarma, Bus Conductor, was later dropped. As such, the present case is quite different to the case of Sri Bidya Kumar Debbarma.

7) The promotion is not a matter of right, but, it is right to be considered. Moreover, the respondent-Corporation as of now has not taken up any steps for constituting Departmental Promotion Committee for consideration of the promotion of the eligible employees of the Corporation.

8) In the facts and circumstances, I find no merit in the present writ petition. However, the respondent No.2 is at liberty to consider the promotion of the writ petitioner as and when the DPC is held considering the eligibility of the petitioner in accordance with law.

9) With the aforesaid observation and direction, this instant writ petition stands disposed.