PRASAD BISWAS Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has a long history. Briefly stated, the petitioner has challenged an order dated 1st August, 2017 passed by the disciplinary authority imposing punishment of reduction of the pay of the petitioner to a lower stage for 2(two) years w.e.f 1st November, 2007 further providing that during such period the petitioner will not earn any increment.

(2.) While the petitioner was working as a Junior Engineer in the Rural Development Department of the State of Tripura, he was visited with a charge sheet dated 14 th May, 2003 in which 3(three) separate and distinct charges were levelled against the petitioner. Since the inquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority agreed that Articles Charge I and III were not proved, we may focus on Charge Article II only. In this charge, it was alleged that the petitioner while functioning as a Junior Engineer was engaged in implementing the work of construction of OBB building at Rangauti during the year 2001-2002. Owing to sub-standard execution of such work which can be attributed to the negligence on part of the petitioner, the constructed building collapsed on 26 th April, 2002 causing serious loss to the Government exchequer. Such loss was estimated at Rs.43,268/-. Petitioner denied the charges upon which departmental inquiry was conducted. The inquiry officer submitted his report dated 31st July, 2007 in which he held that only the above-mentioned charge was established. The disciplinary authority thereafter without providing a copy of the inquiry officer's report imposed punishment on the petitioner under order dated 26 th October, 2007 of reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay for 5(five) years from the date of order further providing that during such period the petitioner shall not earn any increment. He also ordered recovery of a sum of Rs.43,268/- from the pay of the petitioner which would be inclusive of a sum of Rs.15,000/- already separately recovered under an order dated 10 th May, 2002.

(3.) After unsuccessfully challenging the said order before the appellate authority the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition No.WP(C) 331/2011. His petition was disposed of by a judgment dated 16 th December, 2015. The learned Single Judge held that the disciplinary authority would not have imposed the punishment without providing a copy of the inquiry officer's report to the petitioner and inviting his representation thereon. Resultantly, after quashing the order of disciplinary authority the matter was remanded back to the said authority for affording an opportunity to the petitioner to make representation against the report of the inquiry officer and thereafter to pass a fresh order.