Shyamal Kanti Choudhury vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Heard Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the State-respondents.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

The petitioner was appointed as Grade-V Medical Officer under the State-respondents. In course of his service he along with other 18 Medical Officers went on further higher studies. The petitioner had applied for leave but it was neither sanctioned nor refused by the respondents. However, the petitioner had proceeded to pursue the higher studies. On return, the petitioner was placed under suspension for the reason that he was unauthorisedly absent for 73 days. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him for such unauthorized absence for 73 days. After completion of the disciplinary proceeding a penalty was imposed upon the petitioner of withholding 3(three) increments without cumulative effect. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the disciplinary proceeding was commenced after a period of 9(nine) years and by that time he suffered a lot. So, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner on the facts of the case, according to me, appears to be disproportionate.

On the other hand, Mr. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. has submitted that the service of the petitioner along with other 18 medical officers were regularized subsequently and the petitioner has been serving in the Health Department most sincerely and diligently till now.

In the instant case, learned Addl. G.A. has failed to show any record that the authority concerned at any point of time had refused to sanction study leave in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner on good faith had proceeded to pursue his higher study. There is no proof that the petitioner had overstayed for 73 days for the purpose other than to pursue his study.

In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the punishment is disproportionate.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, justice will be rendered if the penalty of 3(three) increments is modified and reduced to 1(one) increment without cumulative effect.

Accordingly, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority-State respondents withholding of 3(three) increments without cumulative effect, is modified and directed to be reduced to withholding of 1(one) increment without cumulative effect. Consequently, the respondents are directed to regularize the service records of the petitioner and grant all benefits in view of today's order within a period of 6(six) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

In the result, the writ petition stands partly allowed with the observation as indicated above and stands disposed accordingly.