SANDHYA DAS Vs. THE STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition the petitioners, who are the widow and sons of Late Sukumar Ranjan Das, have challenged the orders whereby penalty of termination from service was imposed upon Late Sukumar Ranjan Das on 15.01.1988 and also the appellate order, dated 08.12.1988, whereby the appeal filed by Late Sukumar Ranjan Das was dismissed. Consequential relief has been sought that all financial benefits be paid to the petitioners. At the outset, we may notice that Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, has raised a preliminary submission that this petition is not maintainable and is barred by the principles of res judicata because an earlier writ petition being Civil Rule No. 320 of 1988 filed by Sukumar Ranjan Das was dismissed by a learned single Judge of Agartala Bench of the Gauhati High Court. He, therefore, submits that the petition itself is barred by the principles of res judicata and no second petition can be filed. On the other hand Mr. B. Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, contends that the cause of action in respect of the two writ petitions is different inasmuch as the present writ petition was filed after the order of acquittal was passed. He also submits that technicalities should not be allowed to come in the way of imparting justice. Mr. Das further submits that disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings in respect of identical charges cannot be permitted to be carried out simultaneously and if a person has been acquitted in the criminal case then disciplinary proceedings must be decided in his favour. He lastly submits that the appellate order is not a reasoned order and, therefore, should have been set aside.

(2.) At the outset, we may mention that Late Sukumar Ranjan Das was serving as Clerk-cum-Cashier in Netaji Subhas Vidyaniketan, Agartala a 100% government aided school. He was placed under suspension and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for misappropriation of funds. It appears that Late Sukumar Ranjan Das filed Title Suit No. 98 of 1987 challenging the legality of the disciplinary proceedings. He also filed a petition for grant of interim relief restraining the respondents from continuing with the disciplinary proceedings but no order was passed in his favour. Therefore, the disciplinary proceedings carried on and finally the inquiry officer came to the conclusion that Late Sukumar Ranjan Das had misappropriated the funds and, thereafter, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of termination of service. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed as mentioned hereinabove. Thereafter, Late Sukumar Ranjan Das filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which was numbered as Civil Rule 320 of 1988. By means of this petition he challenged the order of his suspension dated 23.02.1987, the memo of proceedings dated 01.06.1987, the order of termination dated 15.01.1988 and the order of the appellate authority dated 28.11.1988. The last two orders are the same orders which are challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) The learned single Judge by a detailed and elaborate judgment came to the conclusion that there was no merit in the petition. With regard to the contention of the petitioner that criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings could not be carried out simultaneously, the learned single Judge held as follows: