PARTHA CHOUDHURY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was initially engaged as a Daily Rated Worker w.e.f 10.05.1984. Later on, he was appointed to the post of Work Assistant, Vide Memo dated 21.09.2006 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) in the pay scale of Rs.3300-7100/- under the respondent No.3. The offer of appointment contained certain terms and conditions. As per that offer of appointment the petitioner was supposed to submit an attestation form duly filled in and a declaration form etc. Accordingly, he submitted the attestation form wherein there was specific column as to whether any case was pending against him in any Court of law at the time of filling up of attestation form to which he replied in negative, but in fact Agartala Women P.S Case No.72 of 2006, U/S 498A of I.P.C was pending against him under investigation and he surrendered before the Court and got bail on 01.07.2006. The petitioner contended that by mistake he did not mention in the attestation form about the pendency of that case and that it was a bona fide mistake.

(2.) An inquiry was conducted under rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 on the above charge and the inquiry officer submitted report against the petitioner(Annexure-11 to the writ petition) on 22.08.2008 holding that the charge framed against the petitioner that he suppressed material fact has been proved. Thereafter by issuing Memorandum dated 17.10.2008 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) the disciplinary authority i.e., respondent Nos.3, asked the petitioner to submit his representation in respect of the finding of the inquiring authority and accordingly, the petitioner submitted his reply (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) on 03.12.2008 contending that because of inadvertence he failed to mention in the attestation form that a criminal case was pending against him and he further stated that it was a bona fide mistake on his part and after considering that reply the disciplinary authority by order dated 17.01.2009 (Annnexure-14 to the writ petition) inflicted punishment of removal from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Principal Secretary to the Government of Tripura and the appeal was also dismissed by the appellate authority by order dated 01.07.2009(Annexure-16 to the writ petition).

(3.) By filing the present writ petition the petitioner challenged the order of removal from service passed by the disciplinary authority dated 17.01.2009 (Annexure-14 to the writ petition) and also appellate order dated 01.07.2009 (Annexure-16 to the writ petition) passed by the appellate authority and prayed for reinstatement in service with all service benefits.