SRI SUDARSAN SINGH SARDAR Vs. THE STATE OF TRIPURA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been proceeded for committing misconduct in breach of Rule 21 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (for short, CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964) read with Rule 11 of the Tripura State Rifles (Recruitment) Rules, 1984 (for short, TSR (Conduct) Rules, 1984) by the Memorandum dated 25.01.2003 (Annexure -P/2 to the writ petition). In breach of Rule 21 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, the petitioner has allegedly married one Smt. Sukla Nath on 06.08.2002 having his wife, namely Smt. Gopa Devi Sardar (Chakma) living. The petitioner had disputed such allegations. As a result, the Disciplinary Authority had decided to inquire into the imputation of misconduct as slapped against the petitioner, by appointing one Inquiring Officer. Accordingly, Sri Jayanta Chakraborty, Assistant Commandant, 4th Battalion Tripura State Rifles (TSR) was appointed as the Inquiring Officer/Authority by the order dated 25.01.2003 (Annexure -P/3 to the writ petition). The said Inquiring Officer had conducted the proceeding and submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority on 30.05.2003, holding that it has been conclusively proved beyond all doubts that the petitioner had entered into 'plural marriage' keeping his first wife alive and thus has violated the provisions of Rule 21 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and Section 11 of the TSR (Conduct) Rules, 1984.

(2.) ON purported examination of the Enquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority, 4th Bn. TSR had passed the provisional order of dismissal of the petitioner on 06.07.2003. Concurring with the findings returned by the Inquiring Officer and proposing major punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from the service, the petitioner was afforded thirty days time to submit representation in his defence, if any. Thereafter, the impugned order of dismissal dated 01.11.2003 (Annexure -P/4 to the writ petition) has been passed by the Disciplinary Authority as the petitioner was found guilty of "plural marriage" in breach of Rule 21 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The petitioner, for gross violation of the principles of natural justice, has approached this court without taking recourse to other remedies. According to the petitioner, he has been denied reasonable opportunity to defend him.

(3.) THE respondents by filing the reply have denied all such allegations as levelled by the petitioner. However, the respondents have admitted that there had been a preliminary inquiry against the petitioner by the order dated 14.11.2002. That inquiry had started on the basis of the allegations of Smt. Gopa Devi Chakma, wife of the petitioner on 08.11.2002. Smt. Gopa Devi Chakma had also filed another written complaint on 21.11.2002 and, on reference thereof, the Tripura State Commission For Women has brought the said misconduct to the knowledge of the Disciplinary Authority. When the Preliminary Inquiry Report was submitted on 16.01.2003, the allegations were found prima facie true and accordingly the memorandum containing the charges was issued to the petitioner. On 25.01.2003, Sri Jayanta Chakraborty, Assistant Commandant, 4th Bn. TSR was appointed as the Inquiring Officer and he has submitted his report on completion of the inquiry. On consideration thereof, the Disciplinary Authority had passed the impugned order of punishment dated 01.11.2003. The respondents have, however, emphatically contended that the petitioner was given all opportunities as per law in the proceeding and the petitioner was not in any way prejudiced by the action of the Inquiring Officer or the Disciplinary Authority. It is the petitioner who did not submit his written statement. Even though the petitioner has alleged that he was not given the opportunity of cross -examination, during examination of Sukla Nath and other witnesses, but the petitioner's presence is discernible from his signature on the deposition sheet. The respondents have also admitted that in the representation filed by the petitioner in response to the provisional dismissal order dated 06.07.2003, he has acceded that he has married twice. Accordingly, after the impugned order of dismissal dated 01.11.2003 was passed the petitioner's name was struck off from the roll of the 4th Bn. TSR w.e.f. 01.11.2003. According to the respondents, there is no infirmity or breach of rule of natural justice as alleged or otherwise.