Subhash Das vs State Of Tripura And Ors

This petition is filed by an employee of the Police Department of State of Tripura. He has challenged the punishment order dated 22.04.2016 by which the competent authority imposed the punishment of withholding of next two increments in the time scale of pay without future effect.

Brief facts are as under:

The petitioner at the relevant time was employed as a Head Constable. He was posted at CID, West Tripura, A.D. Nagar under the Department of Home. On 10.05.2015, the petitioner was on duty in the Dog Squad. During his duty hours at 5.45 in the morning, on the said date, from that kennel one dog Sony was found missing. The dog was later found dead near a pond on 12.05.2015. The Postmortem performed on the dog revealed that he had died due to cardiac arrest.

This incident led to initiation of departmental inquiry against the petitioner and against some other employees of the Police Department. The petitioner was issued a Charge sheet dated 19.05.2015 in which two Charges were leveled against the petitioner. Charge Article-I was that in discharge of his duties, the petitioner had exhibited gross negligence, which was unbecoming of a Government servant. Charge Article-II was more elaborate and alleged that in the night between 10th and 11th of May, 2015 without checking the kennel for ailing dog Sony, the petitioner and another co-employee had reported that everything was in order though apparently, the dog was not in the kennel at the time of the said checking. It was alleged that the petitioner had committed gross misconduct which was unbecoming of a member of a disciplined force like the Police. In the imputation of misconduct, in connection with the said Charge Article-II was further elaborated that at the relevant time there were 9 dogs in the kennel. The kennel was checked at 2145 hrs (by the petitioner and his co-worker) stating that all dogs were in the kennel. Following morning at 5.45 hours it was found that the sniffer dog Sony was not in the kennel. The dead body of the dog was recovered from a nearby place later. It was pointed out that the petitioner was on the night duty on 10th / 11th of May, 2015 and he had certified that all dogs were in proper condition in the kennel without actually verifying the same.

The petitioner denied the Charges and a detailed inquiry was conducted. The inquiry officer submitted his report, which was also provided to the petitioner for making his representation. During the course of inquiry, the inquiry officer had recorded the statements of several witnesses to bring home the Charges. In his detailed representation, the petitioner had once again denied his involvement in the dog missing or being found dead later on.

The disciplinary authority in his impugned order dated 22.04.2016 took into account all relevant aspects. He referred to the contents to the inquiry and the defence of the petitioner. He came to the conclusion that both the Charges against the petitioner were proved. He, therefore, imposed the above noted punishment of withholding of one increment of the petitioner for two years without cumulative effect. Against the said order of punishment, the petitioner also preferred appeal. The appellate authority, however, dismissed that appeal by an order dated 13.07.2016. Thereupon present petition has been filed.

Appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel Mr. A.K. Pal submitted that the petitioner had no role to play in the entire incident. The Charges leveled against the petitioner were not established. The authority, therefore, committed an error in imposing the punishment on the petitioner.

On the other hand, learned Government Advocate Mr. D. Bhattacharjee opposed the petition contending that a departmental inquiry was conducted against the petitioner. All the principles of natural justice were followed in conduct of such inquiry. The petitioner was given opportunity to defend himself. The Charges leveled against the petitioner were established to reliable evidence. The disciplinary authority has imposed a minor punishment. The appellate authority has also examined the matter and dismissed the appeal. He contended that the findings arrived at during the course of inquiry cannot be interfered unless they are shown to be perverse. He relied on the decision of Supreme Court in case of The State of Karnataka and ors. Vs. N. Gangaraj, reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 185 to contend that the scope of judicial review in the departmental inquiry is extremely an error.

From the materials on record, it can be gathered that through reliable evidence, the department established that the petitioner was in-charge of the kennel in the dog squad in the night between 10th / 11th May, 2014. He along with his co-employee certified that everything was in order and that all dogs were in the respective cages in the kennel. Next day early morning, it was found that one of the dogs Sony was missing. This clearly showed that the petitioner had certified a false well being of the kennel without physical and proper verification. He may not be responsible for the dog having escaped nevertheless he was found guilty of making a false report without physical verification which precisely was the charge against him. The findings arrived at during the course of departmental inquiry are not shown to be perverse in the sense that there is no evidence in support thereof. Once such Charges were held to be proved, the only question of relevance would be the quantum of punishment. Here also, the Disciplinary authority has imposed a minor punishment of withholding of two increments without future effect, which cannot be stated to be grossly disproportionate to the proved charges.

In the result, I do not find any reason to interfere. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.