BENOY CH. SARKAR Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner while working as the Rifleman in the 6th Battalion of the Tripura State Rifles (TSR) had been charged of misconduct alongwith others by the Memorandum dated 01.05.2002, Annexure -A to the writ petition. For purpose of reference, the Articles of charge are reproduced hereunder :

(2.) It may be noted that the Departmental Proceeding against the petitioner alongwith others had commenced on a written complaint filed by one Hari Ranjan Ghosh, Havilder of the said battalion. The petitioner disputed the allegations of assaulting said Hari Ranjan Ghosh or causing any grievous hurt, but he had admitted that he asked Hari Ranjan Ghosh as to why he had been maligning the petitioner to the female employees working in the office of the said battalion. In support of his contention, the petitioner had also appended the statements of two female employees with his written statement of defence. The petitioner had also supplied a list of the persons, conversant with the incident for their examination. In response to the letter dated 30.05.2002 from the Enquiry Officer, M. Deb Barma, Annexure -D to the writ petition, the petitioner had submitted a detailed statement of defence to the Enquiry Officer on 03.06.2002, Annexure -E to the writ petition. In the said detailed statement of defence, the petitioner has depicted how the said Havilder, Hari Ranjan Ghosh provoked him by making objectionable comments against the petitioner's mother and sister.

(3.) The Enquiry Officer had examined the witnesses and admitted in the record some documents. The Enquiry Officer had submitted the Inquiry Report on 24.05.2002, part of Annexure -J to the writ petition, to the Disciplinary Authority, the Commandant, 6th Bn. TSR, holding that the charge levelled against the petitioner and others were established and proved. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to file further statement of defence, analysing the evidence as recorded in the inquiry. Based on the said Inquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority, the Commandant, 6th Bn. TSR (IR -II), hadm passed the provisional order dated 10.07.2002, part of Annexure -J to the writ petition, asking the petitioner and others, as to why they shall not be dismissed from service on payment of one month salary in lieu of notice and they were directed to show cause within fifteen days. The petitioner, alongwith two others were also directed to appear before the Disciplinary Authority for personal hearing on any working day, if they desired, before expiry of the period stipulated in the notice.