Swapan Chakraborty vs State Of Tripura And Ors

[1] The petitioner has challenged an order dated 9th June, 2014 passed by the Commandant, Home Guards, Tripura by which he was dismissed from service as also an order dated 6th December, 2014 by which the petitioner's appeal against the said order of dismissal came to be rejected.

[2] Brief facts are as under :

The petitioner was engaged as a Home Guard in the year 1962. On 20th June 2005, the department issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to explain five charges of misconduct. It was alleged that the petitioner had left his headquarter unauthorisedly and gone to Hyderabad for political motives while he was on sick leave. He had undertaken a journey from Agartala to Guwahati by a private transport and from Guwahati to Hyderabad by train from there he returned from Bishakhapattam to Guwahati by train and again arrived at Agartala by bus from Guwahati. While at Hyderabad he had taken part in political programmes and secret meetings. He had also made preparations for a proposed disobedience movement scheduled on 7th April, 2004. He had thereby exhibited gross misconduct in discharge of his duties.

[3] The petitioner replied to the said notice on 5th July, 2005 and denied the charges. He claimed that he had never left the State. He was genuinely ill and had not engaged himself in any impermissible activities. An inquiry was thereupon conducted resulting into the disciplinary authority passing an order on 19th December, 2005 by which his name was struck off from the role of the Home Guards. The petitioner challenged the said order before the High Court by filing WP(C) No.246/2006 which was disposed of by a Division Bench by a judgment dated 12th February, 2014 in which it was held that neither the report of the inquiry nor the statements of witnesses were supplied to the petitioner. The High Court, therefore, set aside the said order allowing the authorities to proceed from the stage of inquiry report which would be supplied to the petitioner along with statements of the witnesses recorded during such inquiry. The petitioner would have fifteen days time to make his representation in response to the inquiry report. The Commandant would thereafter take a fresh decision.

[4] After complying with the said directions the Commandant of Home Guards allowed the petitioner to make a representation which the petitioner made under a letter dated 3rd March, 2014. He submitted that the allegations against him were baseless. There was no evidence of his travel from Agartala to Guwahati and onwards. The charges were held to have been proved on the basis of unreliable evidence.

[5] The Commandant passed a provisional order of punishment on 24th May, 2014 giving fifteen days time to the petitioner to respond. Eventually, he passed the impugned order dated 9th June, 2014 after considering the petitioner's representation dated 2nd June, 2014 to the provisional punishment order. He held that the charges against the petitioner were proved. He was of the opinion that the petitioner had mobilized the proposed disobedience movement scheduled on 7th April, 2004. He held that the other charges were also proved and, therefore, passed the order of dismissal from service. The petitioner thereupon preferred an appeal which appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority by order dated 6th December, 2014 whereupon this petition came to be filed.

[6] Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had not committed any misconduct. There was no evidence in support of the charges levelled. During the course of oral arguments, the counsel for the petitioner had taken a stand that the petitioner may have travelled to Hyderabad, the same was for medical treatment and during his stay at Hyderabad the petitioner had not engaged himself in any illegal or impermissible activity and that, therefore, he cannot be stated to have committed any misconduct. He submitted that the petitioner had put in long years of service. He has now crossed the age of superannuation. As an alternative argument, therefore, he contended that extreme punishment of dismissal from service may be reduced.

[7] On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the petition contending that all the charges against the petitioner were proved. He was in a disciplined force. While reporting sick he had travelled unauthorisedly to Hyderabad via Guwahati from Agartala during which time he had taken part in illegal union activities. Petition may, therefore, be dismissed.

[8] As noted, this is second round of litigation. Previously the order passed by the disciplinary authority was set aside on technical grounds whereupon the department supplied the necessary reports and documents to the petitioner and permitted him to make his representation. After considering such representation the disciplinary authority first passed a provisional order of punishment granting time to the petitioner to respond. He thereafter passed the impugned order. The inquiry officer had given detailed reasons to come to the conclusion that the petitioner had travelled from Agartala to Guwahati and then to Hyderabad during which time he had taken part in impermissible activities. The disciplinary authority concurred with such findings. Such findings are not shown to be perverse. Considering the proved charges and the fact that the petitioner was a member of Home Guards, even the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate authority calls for no interference.

[9] One significant aspect of the matter is that during oral arguments the advocate to the petitioner had suggested that the petitioner may have travelled to Hyderabad but it was for medical treatment and that during his stay at Hyderabad he might have met a few of his associates, none of his activities were impermissible or illegal. His stand that the petitioner has taken during the oral arguments is dramatically different from what the petitioner had taken before the departmental authorities. From the very beginning when the department asked for explanation of the petitioner by issuing show cause notice, till he filed the appeal against the order of dismissal before the appellate authority, the petitioner had steadfastly taken a stand that he had never left Tripura to go to Guwahati and Hyderabad as was alleged by the department. Thus the stand of the petitioner consistently before the department was that he had never undertaken the journey as alleged. Significantly, the petitioner had reported sick. The angle that he had travelled to Hyderabad for medical treatment during such period, has not been brought on record. Such argument, therefore, cannot be taken into consideration since it is not backed by any material on record and was not even adopted by the petitioner during the entire long departmental proceedings. Question of reducing the penalty, therefore, also does not arise.

[10] In the result, petition fails and is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.