LAWS(TRIP)-2014-8-22

DILIP DAS Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

Decided On August 14, 2014
DILIP DAS Appellant
V/S
The State of Tripura Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main grievance of the petitioner is that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him are barred by limitation under rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that a certificate was issued on 30 -10 -1976 in favour of the petitioner in which he was shown to be belonging to the Scheduled Castes (hereinafter referred to as SC). On the basis of this SC certificate, the petitioner was appointed as lower division clerk (LDC) by the Government of Tripura on 10 -05 -1982. Thereafter, he was promoted as Accountant as a SC candidate on 09 -07 -1998. In the latter part of 2004, a complaint was made to the State that the petitioner had obtained employment on the basis of a false SC certificate. The Vigilance Department of the State submitted a report to the State Level Scrutiny Committee on 13 -01 -2005 and it was proposed that the SC certificate in favour of the petitioner be cancelled. According to the report of the Vigilance, the petitioner belonged to the "Kayastha" community and was not a SC. In the said report, it is also mentioned that the present petitioner was also associated with the inquiry and that the petitioner stated to the Inquiring Officer that he had obtained the SC certificate on the basis of a similar certificate issued to his uncle Sri Santi Ranjan Das. Since his uncle and cousin sister had surrendered their certificates, he (the petitioner) realized that his certificate was also false. In the mean time, on 30 -01 -2005, the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement and he was allowed to proceed on voluntary retirement w.e.f. 01 -05 -2005. No action was taken against him while he was in service. On 10 -06 -2005 a show -cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why his certificate should not be cancelled. In reply thereto, the petitioner surrendered his SC certificate. Thereafter, the State Level Scrutiny Committee came to the conclusion that the petitioner does not belong to SC.

(3.) RELEVANT portion of Rule 9 of the Pension Rules reads as follows: -