KSHITISH CHANDRA SHIL Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner, a Panchayat Secretary under the Directorate of Panchayats, has challenged the order of suspension under No.F.1(2-394)-ESSTT/ PR/87/9808-10 dtd. 1/10/2005, Annexure-A to the writ petition, the Memorandum containing the Articles of Charge under No.F.1(2-394)-ESSTT/PR/87(L)/4143-55 dtd. 8/6/2007 issued by the Director of Panchayats, Government of Tripura, Annexure-B to the writ petition, the inquiry report dtd. 23/12/2008, Annexure-F to the writ petition, the final order of penalty under No.F.1(2-394)- ESSTT/PR/87(L)/5639-643 dtd. 13/7/2010, Annexure-N to the writ petition and the order under No.F.1(2-394)-ESSTT/PR/APPEAL/ 14892-93 dtd. 1/11/2010, Annexure-Q to the writ petition issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Panchayat Department by dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has urged for direction upon the respondents not to give effect to those impugned memoranda/orders in any manner whatsoever.

(2.) The petitioner while serving as the Panchayat Secretary was placed under suspension by the order dtd. 1/10/2005, Annexure-A to the writ petitioner, under Rule 10(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding. By the Memorandum dtd. 8/6/2007, Annexure-B to the writ petition, the petitioner was communicated the imputation of misconduct in the form of articles of charges along with the other materials observing the requirement of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. As many as 8 charges were brought against the petitioner and those are as under:

(3.) On a bare reading of the charges, it would appear that the petitioner was imputed for attempt to mis-appropriate the Government fund either temporarily or permanently and when those mis-appropriation was located, he failed to explain his conduct as regards the utilisation of the fund or why the fund was not utilised for the specified works. Moreover, he had tweaked the procedures for siphon out the Government fund for his gain. Even, in collusion with the F.P. Shop dealer, the PDS rice allotted for the workers had been sold out in the market. Later on, some amount was deposited without completing the work. That action amounts to dereliction of the duty and it indicates to lack of integrity. Even the petitioner has been imputed for not taking the technical approval for construction of the road and box culvert. He continued the work even without the knowledge of the Block Development Officer, Kalyanpur. All those mis-conducts, according to the respondents, come within the purview of failure to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and the conduct unbecoming of a Government employee under Rule 3 of the TCS (Conduct) Rules, 1988 and hence the disciplinary proceeding was initiated.