SANTI KUMAR DEBBARMA Vs. THE STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard learned counsel, Mr. C.S. Sinha for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate, Mr. S. Chakraborty for the State -respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner while was working as a constable of Tripura State Rifles (for short 'TSR'), a disciplinary proceeding was drawn up vide Memo dated 12.05.2008 (Annexure -3 to the writ petition), issued by the Superintendent of police, North Tripura, Kailashahar (respondent No. 3) on the following two distinct head of article of charges: -

(3.) RESPONDENTS contended that all reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to defend his case. His request to spare the services of Shri Tushar Kanti Bhattacharji, Assistant Commandant could not be entertained and he was repeatedly asked to propose the name of any other person as his defence assistant, but he did not name any other person and so he cannot claim that reasonable opportunity was not given to him to appoint a defence assistant of his choice. He did not also adduce any evidence and did not participate in the proceeding and after affording all opportunities to him the disciplinary authority passed the order of punishment which has got no infirmity and, therefore, the order of punishment cannot be interfered in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.