RATAN DUTTA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.M. Lodh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M.Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. T.D. Majumder learned Additional Government Advocate for the State- respondents.

(2.) The petitioner Shri Ratan Dutta was working as an Extension officer in the office of the S.D.O. Sadar Sub Division,West Tripura District, Agartala. By order dated November 8, 1993 the petitioner was transferred from Agartala to Dumburnagar Block, South Tripura. The petitioner challenged the transfer order by way of writ petition before this Court. By order dated December 8, 1993 this Court ordered that if the petitioner had not already been released, he shall not be released. In subsequent contempt petition filed by the petitioner before this Court, the petitioner stated that he wanted to go on voluntary retirement and so the period of his absence from duty might be regularised in accordance with the rules. Accordingly, this Court by order dated July 18, 1996 directed the petitioner to submit an appropriate letter to the appropriate authority seeking voluntary retirement in accordance with the relevant rules. In compliance with the directions issued by this Court the petitioner submitted petition for voluntary retirement and also for grant of leave. The two prayers of the petitioner were rejected by the respondent's department on the ground that the petitioner did not apply for voluntary retirement in the prescribed manner and also did not submit medical certificate in support of his application for medical leave. Subsequently the respondent's department started disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and charges were framed for unauthorised absence from duty and for disobeying the transfer order issued by the department. The inquiry authority found the petitioner guilty 01 both the charges and ultimately the punishment, order of removal from service has been passed.

(3.) During the course of arguments it has been fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the respondents that before imposing the punishment of removal from service, no show cause notice was given to the petitioner as laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan 1991 AIR SC 471 : 1991 (1) SCC 588 : 1991-I-LLJ-29. Since the show cause notice has not been given the whole proceedings including the punishment awarded to the petitioner stands vitiated. In the result, the punishment of removal from service imposed upon the petitioner is not sustainable. It may also be observed that as the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement, the respondents should have accepted the petitioner's request and should not have turned down the request on technical grounds.