KALYAN DEBNATH Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A. Gan Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Sarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The facts in the writ petition, in a nutshell, are that while the petitioner was serving as Junior Engineer under the respondents he was charged under Rule 14 of the CCS(CC&A) Rules, 1965 vide Memo.No.F.6(58)-PWD(E)/70(III)-(S-II) dated 22.09.1994 and the charges are as under:

(3.) Mr. Gan Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the eve of Durgapuja while all the higher officials and engineers went on leave, the petitioner was entrusted with the duties to carry out all the routine nature of works. Prior to six months of Durgapuja(1993), the department had prepared estimates for repairing 8(eight) numbers of dilapidated wooden bridges of the Sub-Division and those were required for urgent repairing for public use, standing over various cannels and rivers connecting the roads. The Superintending Engineer, 1 st Circle, Kumarghat assured the local bodies that the Department would keep the semi permanent timber bridges during Durgapuja holidays to avoid any kind of accident and such instruction was given to the office but the department could not repair the same.