Satyendra Kumar Debnath vs State Of Tripura And Ors

[1] Heard Mr. A. K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the State-respondents.

[2] By means of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of penalty dated 4th November, 2015 issued by the disciplinary authority upheld by the appellate authority vide order dated 8th June, 2016 reducing service of the the petitioner by one grade from the grade he was enjoying at that time, for a period of 2(two) years w.e.f. December, 2015.

[3] The facts, in brief are as follows:

[3.1] The petitioner while discharging his duties as Panchayat Secretary, Kadamtala R. D. Block, was faced with the charge of misappropriation of government money and irregularities in implementation of various development works/projects under the said block.

[3.2] Initially, the petitioner was placed under suspension on account of an inquiry, article of charges were framed against the petitioner. The inquiry authority after recording the evidence has exonerated the petitioner from the charges levelled against him. But the disciplinary authority interfered with the observation made by the inquiry authority and accordingly, he, disagreed with the findings arrived at by the inquiry authority.

[4] From the order dated 4th November, 2015, I find that the disciplinary authority has discussed the evidence on record against the petitioner and after careful scrutiny of the findings arrived at by the inquiry authority, the disciplinary authority held the petitioner guilty as according to him, the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved.

[5] Consequently, the petitioner was reduced by one grade from the grade he was holding for a period of two years w.e.f. December, 2015. Against the said order of penalty dated 4th November, 2015, passed by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority also upheld and affirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority.

[6] Mr. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn my attention to a finding of the inquiry authority which is reproduced herein below:

"Point No. 2.

The petitioner neither produced any documentary evidence nor the witnesses gave any evidence about the alleged extra withdrawal of amount of Rs. 16,421/-. During examination of PWs none also stated about the amount as remained outstanding with the AO. The AO in his defence statement stated inspecting officers failed to see the SGRY work order No. 2406-2410 dated 21.08.2008 and its work site and adjustment. This allegation is not sustained."

[7] Mr. Pal, learned counsel has further relied upon the averments in point No. 6 that there was evidence to substantiate the charges revealled against the petitioner. This Court, for convenience may reproduce the finding of the inquiry authority in regard to the point No. 6 which reads as under:

"Point No. 6

This point ensue the same result of findings noted against the above points.

Viewed in the above perspective and based on materials and evidences made available and taking into account of brief of argument of both sides I find and hold that the charges levelled against the A.O. gets shattered."

[8] Mr. Pal, learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner in course of the proceeding has been able to justify the adjustment of Rs. 16,421/- which was submitted to the Block Development Officer (BDO for short) to substantiate that he was innocent.

[9] Mr. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner based on this evidence, has tried to persuade this Court that on the basis of the finding arrived at by the inquiry authority, the disciplinary authority ought not to have disagreed with the findings of the inquiry authority, thereby imposing a penalty reducing his grade for two years.

[10] Mr. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the State-respondents has submitted that the disciplinary authority has ample power and right within the ambit of law to disagree with the findings of the inquiry authority. Mr. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. has further submitted that this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction has no power to review the decision arrived at by the disciplinary authority.

[11] Mr. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to a finding of the disciplinary authority, where the disciplinary authority has held that the delinquent i.e. the petitioner had failed to explain the delay in submitting the adjustment of Rs. 16,421/-.

[12] I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. From the impugned order dated 4th November, 2015, I find that the disciplinary authority in his finding has clearly observed that "the adjustment copy (documentary evidence) submitted by the AO himself for Rs. 16,421/- in support of his claim makes it clear that he had withheld the amount for a long time by non submitting adjustment within reasonable time. He has also given misleading information before the IA. Therefore, undersigned is not agreed with the finding of the IA in the above term."

[13] The disciplinary authority disagreeing with the findings of the inquiry authority held as under:

"Whereas, keeping aside the question of misappropriation of government fund for Rs. 16,421/-, it is clear that his intention was bad for the amount and therefore he took extraordinary delay to submit his adjustment to the office without any explanation. In support of his extra-ordinary delay for submitting adjustment, he could not speak anything during personnel hearing. He has denied any pendency of adjustment time and again earlier including the amount, but being compelled from the office of the Block Development Officer and even from the DM & Collector, Dhalai, he had submitted the adjustment after long three years and after nearly one and half years of suspension order. It clearly establishes that he failed to maintain devotion to his duty, failed to maintain financial regularity in the GP. His evil intention is firmed in his earlier statements, his extraordinary delay for submission of adjustment for the work under compulsion ground."

[14] From the above analysis which was made by the disciplinary authority, it is evinced that the disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the findings of the inquiry authority has applied his mind and also has given the reasons for disagreement.

[15] This Court is not the Court of appeal to reevaluate or re-appreciate the evidence led by the parties. This Court only interfere with any order of penalty when it hits the conscience of the Court that the penalty imposed upon the delinquent was in violation of principles of natural justice. It is not that the disciplinary authority cannot disagree with the findings of the Inquiry Authority. Only requirement is that the disciplinary authority has to assign and record reasons of such disagreement. In departmental proceeding compliance of strict rule of the Evidence Act is not necessary. The evidence is to be weighed on pre-ponderance of probability. After careful scrutiny of the evidence discussed by the disciplinary authority, I find the disciplinary authority has duly appreciated the evidence on record before imposing penalty on the petitioner.

[16] Having held so, I find no merit in this present writ petition and accordingly, the impugned order dated 4th November, 2015 passed by the disciplinary authority and the order dated 8th June, 2016 passed by the appellate authority deserve no interference. As such, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.