Tandra Debbarma vs State Of Tripura And Ors.

Petitioner is a Headmistress of a Government school. She was visited with a charge sheet under memorandum dated 4th February, 2020 in which it was alleged that while serving as a Headmistress at Hariganga Girls High School which had merged with Bodhjung Girls High School, she failed to discharge her duties and responsibilities as a head of the institution which resulted into 100% failure of the students in Madhyamik Examination, 2019 which was conducted by Tripura Board of Secondary Education (TBSE). It was alleged that for such poor performance of the school students the petitioner cannot deny her lack of sincerity. On account of lapse on her part of not following the action plan issued by the Government such consequences had followed.

The petitioner filed a reply to the said charges under letter dated 1st April, 2020. She defended her position by pointing out that almost all students in the school were tribal students coming from remote areas and villages of the State. They were familiar with their mother tongue of Kokbarak. She had undertaken several measures to impart proper education to them. Under the circumstances, if there is a high failure rate of the students of the school, she cannot be blamed for the same.

Ignoring such pleas of the petitioner, the Secretary to the Government of Tripura passed impugned order dated 9th December, 2020 imposing minor punishment of withholding of one increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. The petitioner challenged this order before the appellate authority. Appeal was also dismissed. Hence this petition.

Learned senior counsel Sri Roy Barman for the petitioner raised two contentions. Firstly, that the petitioner cannot be blamed for the poor result of the students since the petitioner had pointed out the reasons for high failure rate. Secondly, the procedure as laid down in Rule 16 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules [CCS(CCA) Rules] was not followed. The petitioner was not given opportunity to defend herself.

Neither of these grounds persuades me to entertain this petition. Firstly, the record would show that 18 students had appeared in the examination conducted by the State School Board. All 18 failed. The petitioner as a Headmistress of the school cannot shift entire blame on external circumstances. It may be that there were certain challenges that the school and the students faced. Nevertheless, when the competent authority on the basis of materials on record came to the conclusion that the petitioner as the head of the institution must take at least a part of the blame, I do not see the same can be interfered in a writ jurisdiction.

Coming to the question of procedure to be followed before imposition of penalty, undisputedly, the penalty imposed is a minor one. The procedure to be followed therefore would be governed under Rule 16 of CCS(CCA) Rules as adopted by the State of Tripura. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 16 lays down the procedure of informing the Government servant in writing of the proposal to take action on the imputation of misconduct and giving an opportunity to the Government servant of making representation. Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) further provides for holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rule (3) to (23) of Rule 14 in every case in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary.

This clause would have two purposes. Firstly, if at any stage of the inquiry, if the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that minor penalty may not be adequate and the case calls for imposition of major penalty, the disciplinary authority must resort to the major penalty procedure laid down in Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules. Mr. Roy Barman may be correct in contending that even in cases of minor punishment; it is the discretion of the disciplinary authority to follow the procedure laid down in Rule 14 whenever such inquiry is necessary. However, I do not agree with his later suggestion that in every case, the disciplinary authority must apply its mind and pass an order to conduct such an inquiry or to decide not to conduct it. It is only when the disciplinary authority decides to conduct the inquiry he may have to express his mind on record but not otherwise. In other words, for imposing minor penalty, not following the procedure under Rule 14 would be a norm with the discretion of the disciplinary authority to follow the detail procedure in appropriate case.

My attention was also drawn to sub-rule (1-A) of Rule 16 which reads as under :

"(1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (b) of sub-rule (1), if in a case it is proposed after considering the representation, if any, made by the Government servant under Clause (a) of that sub- rule, to withhold increments of pay and such withholding of increments is likely to affect adversely the amount of pension payable to the Government servant or to withhold increments of pay for a period exceeding three years or to withhold increments of pay with any order imposing on the Government servant any such penalty."

This sub-rule would apply in three eventualities namely, when the effect of the withholding of the increment is on amount of pension or where the disciplinary authority decides to withhold more than three increments or decides to withhold the increment with cumulative effect for any period. In all these three eventualities major penalty procedure would be followed. However, none of these eventualities have arisen in the present case. The penalty is for imposition of one increment without future effect and it is not the case of the petitioner that she is likely to retire within the currency of the punishment due to which her pension may be adversely affected.

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