AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Learned Counsel Mr. Saugat Datta appearing on behalf of the petitioner and also, heard Learned Addl. G.A., Mr. Mangal Debbarma appearing on behalf of the State-respondents.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief/reliefs:
i)As to why a writ of Certiorari and or a writ in the nature thereof, should not be issued, for declaring that the impugned order no.0462-64/F. 15(16)/ ADGP (AP)/PHQ/25 dated, 27-02-2025 passed by the Director General of Police, Tripura, Agartala upholding the Order passed by the Commandant, 13 Bn TSR(IR-IX) imposing major punishment vide No.11706-19/F. DP No.02/2016/BR/TSR-13/Estt/2016 dated 11/10/2017; and Order passed by the Inspector General of Police (TSR & Ops) (appellate authority) vide no.7070-73/F.Pers/Appeal/BR/24 dated, 22/07/2024 should not be quashed and cancelled and set aside;
AND/OR
ii) As to why a writ of Mandamus should not be issued mandating/directing the Respondents to reinstate Petitioner in the rank of Naik GD in which he was serving until he was removed from service by the impugned Order of the Commandant, dated 11/10/2017 and to pay him all arrear salary etc. to which the Petitioner would have been entitled if he had not been removed from service by the said impugned order of the Commandant which was approved by the impugned order dated, 27-02-2025 passed by the Director General of Police, Tripura, Agartala;
AND/OR
iii) As to why any other writ or direction should not be issued to grant complete and adequate relief to the petitioner and after hearing the parties your lordships may be pleased to make the rules absolute.
AND
For this act of kindness the Petitioner, as in duty bound, shall ever pray.
At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the petitioner drawn the attention of this Court that the petitioner was serving in Tripura State Rifles since 14.09.1997 and was discharging his duties sincerely to the satisfaction of the higher authorities. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Lance Naik and was posted under 6th Battalion of TSR and after that, he was further promoted to the rank of Naik and was posted under 13th Battalion of TSR at Bhandarima Platoon post in the interior place of Kanchanpur. During his posting at Bhandarima on 26.02.2015, he came to know that his elder brother-in-law namely Havildar Rajendra Chowdhury Reang of 3rd Battalion TSR suffered a stroke and passed away and after post mortem his dead body was brought to his house at Karbook. Accordingly, he prayed for CL to pay visit to the residence of his brother-in-law which was granted from 26.02.20215 to 28.02.2015. On the way to visit Karbook, he halted at his home and found that his mother and wife were suffering from illness and thereafter he went to Karbook and took part in the funeral of his brother-in-law. Then he returned back to his duties. Sardh of his brother-in-law was performed on 07.03.2015 for which he was granted one day CL from 07.03.2015 to 09.03.2015 afternoon suffixing Sunday on 08.03.2015. In the same manner when he visited his home he found that his mother and his wife were suffering from illness. After taking care of them, he rushed to Karbook and found his widow sister was in extreme grief with her two children. Thereafter, he was supposed to come back to his duty but due to the critical condition of his sister and her children and the illness of his mother, he was mentally disturbed and as such, he could not resume his duty on 09.03.2015 and remained absent for a long period. After that, on 24.10.2017, his wife received an order dated 11.10.2017(Annexure-3) from the Commandant 13th BN TSR and that time, he could know that one Departmental proceeding was drawn up against him and he was imposed punishment. He preferred an appeal before the Inspector General of Police (TSR & Ops), Agartala which was rejected vide order dated 22.07.2024 (Annexure-5). Thereafter, he also preferred revision petition before the Inspector General of Police (TSR & Ops), Agartala (Annexure-6) and his revision petition was also dismissed by the Authority vide order dated 27.02.2025 (Annexure-9). Hence, under compelling circumstances, he has filed the writ petition.
Further, Learned Counsel drawn the attention of the Court referring Section 11 of the Tripura State Rifles Act, 1983 and submitted that in clause (m) of the said act, it has been provided as under:
“11.Less heinous offences.-Every member of the Rifles who-
(m)absents himself without leave, or without sufficient cause overstays leave granted to him; or”
Referring the same, he submitted that as per Section 11 of the said act, if any member of the Rifles absent himself without leave or without sufficient cause overstays leave granted to him that would be amount to less heinous offences but the respondent-Disciplinary Authority at the time of issuing final order has imposed major punishment upon him under Section 12(1)(i) of the Tripura State Rifles Act, 1983 which is contrary to Section 11 of the said Act and as such, for violation of the principle of natural justice, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking redress and urged for setting aside the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 11.10.2017 (Annexure-3).
The respondents have contested this writ petition by filing counter affidavit. In para Nos. 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated as under:
“5.That, in reply to para 14 to 16 of the writ petition, I say that it is fact that the article of charge framed against the petitioner is a less offence, but the petitioner did not trun up to join in the Govt. duty, for which he has been removed from service U/S 12(1)(i) of TSR Act, 1983 after conducting Departmental Enquiry following all legal formalities. Therefore, punishment order has been issued as per TSR Act & Rules, 1983 U/S 12(1)(i) after observing all legal formalities. He did not inform the matter to the higher authority about his overstay from leave.
6.That, in reply to para 17 of the writ petition, I say that the order of major punishment of removal from service is not a „Non Est‟ in the eye of law for which the respondent no.2 (DGP Tripura) has upheld the same.”
However, at the time of hearing, Learned Addl. G.A. submitted that the petitioner remained absent for a quite long period. So, the Authority rightly imposed punishment under Section 12(1)(i) of the Tripura State Rifles Act and the present petitioner in this case could not place any material before the Court to consider the writ petition.
It was further submitted that there is no scope on the part of this Court to interfere with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and urged for dismissal of this writ petition.
I have heard both the sides at length and perused the writ petition and the connected documents annexed with the petition as well as the counter affidavit and the documents relied upon by the respondents.
The present petitioner in this case has not challenged the validity of the Departmental Proceeding drawn up against him. Rather it has been admitted by the petitioner that due to mental agony and sufferings and also for some familical issues he could not resume his duties on time. But only to the extent of imposition of punishment, the petitioner has challenged the final order issued by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 11.10.2017 (Annexure-3) which has been affirmed in appeal and thereafter in revision by the respondent-authorities.
However, the respondent-Authority in their counter affidavit in para No.5 admitted that the Article of Charge framed against the petitioner is a less offence but it has not been explained as to why and how the respondent authorities have imposed major punishment to the petitioner when the Act itself in sub-clause (m) of Section 11 says that unauthorized absence from duties tantamounts to less heinous offence. In course of hearing, Learned Addl. G.A. could not give any satisfactory explanation as to why the respondent-Authority imposed major punishment to the petitioner when he has committed less heinous offence. Thus, it appears that the punishment imposed by the respondent-Authority was not in consonance with the misconduct committed by the petitioner for which it appears to this Court that the final order of the Disciplinary Authority suffers from infirmities and the same needs to be interfered with.
In the result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby allowed. The order dated 11.10.2017 (Annexure-3) and the subsequent order dated 22.07.2024 (Annexure-5) and the revisional order dated 27.02.2025 (Annexure-9) accordingly stands quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent-Authority to reconsider the imposition of punishment upon the petitioner in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Tripura Rifles Act, 1983. The respondent-Authority before imposition of punishment shall hear the petitioner and thereafter shall pass appropriate order in accordance with the relevant provisions of the said Act. The entire exercise shall be completed by the respondent-Authority within a period of 4(four) months from the date of passing of this judgment.
With this observation, this present writ petition stands disposed of on contest.
Pending applications(s), if any, also stands disposed of.