Tapash Debbarma vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Heard Mr. P.K. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the| respondents.

By the memorandum dated 09.04.2014 [Annexure-9 to the writ petition] a departmental proceeding against the petitioner has commenced under Rule 14 of the Central Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 on the following charges :

STATEMENT OF ARTICLE OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST SRI TAPAS DEBBARMA, LDC, ATTACHED TO BDO, PADMABIL, KHOWAI DISTRICT

Sri Tapash Debbarma, LDC while discharging duty as LDC in the O/o the BDO, Padmabil as implementing officer of IAY (Normal + ROFR) 2011-12, Sri Tapas Debbarma, LDC has committed irregularities in respect of payment of money.

Such act, on the part of Sri Tapas Debbarma, LDC being a Government Employee is unbecoming and tentamounts to gross misconduct and warrants disciplinary action, the details of which has been set forth in the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in Annexure-II.

Article of Charge No-II

Sri Tapas Debbarma, LDC has paid excess amount of Rs.3,90,000/- to 37 numbers of beneficiaries. It appears that due to excess payment, 29 numbers of beneficiaries had been paid short and the shortage amounted to Rs.3,92,000/- only. The balance amount could not be traced out till now.

Article of Charge No.-III

Such act of the part of Sri Tapas Debbarma, LDC, being a Government employee is unbecoming and tentamounts to gross misconduct & warrants disciplinary action the details in which has been set forth in the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour in Annexure-IV.

Article of Charge No.-IV

The matter has duly been enquired into by Sri B.C. Roy, DC, DM's office, Khowai, it transpires that he had visited twice on 18.03.2014 and 22.03.2014 at Padmabil Block Head Quarter and field level at Paglabari and Towasing ADC Villagers to check the reality.

At Block level, discussion was held with Smt. Rinku Reang, BDO, Padmabil and Sri Biplab Sarkar, AAO. Discussion was also held with Sri Padma Kumar Debbarma, Chairman, Padmabil BAC (MLA).

Sri Ramendra Debbarma, AAO, DM's office, Khowai assisted during enquiry.

At Block level, the Budget Control Register 2011-2012 have been checked but these have not been maintained in a proper way and clear calculation figure has not been traced. Page number and certificate of the register were found blank. No authentication by the DDO was made.

The Cashier of the Block was asked to furnish documentary papers of bank advice against each beneficiary, but he failed to show the figure.

He met with the Branch Manager, TGB, Padmabil to furnish beneficiary wise statement of payment. He submitted accordingly.

He has prepared 66 nos. beneficiary wise statement of payment on the basis of bank statement and report of the BDO. The clear picture has been shown in the separate sheet (The Bank statement and beneficiary wise payment statement is enclosed at ANNEXURE-1).

As per prepared statement against eh 66 nos. beneficiary the excess payment and shortage payment are reflected, which are identified and as a whole the figure stands in total excess payment Rs.3,90,000/- and shortage payment Rs.3,92,000/-.

The total amount of IAY (Normal) 2011-2012 received against 120 beneficiaries by the Block Rs.120 x @ Rs.48,500/- 58,20,000/- On the other hand received against 270 beneficiaries of IAY (RoFR) 270 x @ Rs.48,000/-=1,30,95,000/- (The fund placed from DM West & CEO, PTZP under different Memo, which are enclosed ANNEXURE-2 & 3).

The 66 beneficiary wise statement received from TGB, Padmabil is enclosed at ANNEXURE-4.

AS per IAY guideline the beneficiaries are payable Rs.12,000/- 15,000/- & 10,000/- at different 3(three) instalments respectively.

As per statement, prepared by Sri B.C. Roy, it appears normally paid to 04 beneficiaries, excess paid to 31 beneficiaries. As a result, payment was shortage against 31 beneficiaries.

In the field level verification of IAY 2011-1012, he had visited o 22.03.2014 at Paglabari ADC Village, where the house of Dhupswari Debbarma and Suchitra Debbarma had not completed.

Such act of the part of Sri Tapas Debbarma, LDC being a Government employee is unbecoming and tentamounts to gross misconduct & warrants disciplinary action, the details in which has been set forth in the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour."

The petitioner has disputed those charges as for not having any sustainable foundation and as a result, the disciplinary authority has instituted an inquiry. The inquiry even after lapse of five years is nowhere to its finality and consequentially, the petitioner has been suffering the multiple prejudices since 09.04.2014.

Mr. P.K. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has made a representation to the disciplinary authority to expedite the matter as the petitioner is under suspension by dint of the order dated 07.03.2014. Even, the petitioner has not been given the effect of the revisional pay scale. Finally, Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel having referred to the policy of the government as reflected in the memorandum dated 15.06.2017 that such delay is not only unacceptable, but also arbitrary and contrary to the basic concept of the departmental action. In the said memorandum dated 15.06.2017 it has been provided as follows :

"Attention of all Departments/Heads of Departments are invited to the Memo No.F.3(28)-GA(AR)/99(S-I) dated 7th July, 2004 (copy enclosed for ready reference) specifying the time schedule for disposal of allegations/disciplinary proceedings which is reproduced below :

i. Preliminary fact finding departmental enquiry on any allegation to be completed - within 30 days.

ii. Vigilance inquiry to be completed - within 90 days

iii. Enquiry by Inquiring Authority/ Inquiry Officer to be completed - within 6(six) months.

All Departments/Heads of Departments are requested to strictly follow the said time schedule for disposal of allegations/disciplinary proceedings."

Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that the disciplinary authority has thrown that policy in the wind and made the petitioner suffer immeasurably.

Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents having gone through the records has submitted that the departmental proceeding ought to be completed within a short while.

Having acknowledged his statement, this court is of the firm view that the departmental proceeding shall be completed in all respect within a period of six months from the day when the petitioner shall produce a copy of this order, failing which the said memorandum dated 09.04.2014 [Annexure-9 to the writ petition] shall stand automatically quashed and in that event, the petitioner shall be deemed to have been fully exonerated from the said charges.

In terms of the above, this writ petition stands allowed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

A copy of this order be furnished to the counsel for the parties.