SWAPAN DEB Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a Sub- Inspector of Police challenged the validity and constitutionality of the impugned punishment imposed upon him vide D.O. 931 dated 25.2.1992. By the impugned order having exhausted the departmental proceeding, the petitioner was imposed with a departmental penalty of withholding of his following one increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect. He also challenged the validity, legality and constitutionality of appellate order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police Range (W/N), Tripura dated 4.8.1992 confirming/affirming the aforesaid punishment.

(2.) The case of the petitioner, in short, is that while the petitioner was posted as Sub- Inspector of Police at Kalamchara Police Station under West Tripura District on 17.4.1989 at about 9-15 P.M., as alleged in Memorandum of charges, he trespassed into Boxanagar Forest Range Office and detained one Smti Chunati Debbarma without any prior allegation of cognizable offence and put said adult Smti Chunati Deb Barma under unnecessary harassment. The department drew up departmental proceeding bearing No. 46/89 on 2.9.1989 against the petitioner. Shri J.C. Majumdar, Assistant Commandant DAR (West) West Tripura, Agartala was appointed as Inquiring Authority and having exhausted the procedure, the Inquiring Authority conducted and concluded the inquiry by submitting his report on 12.7.1991 holding charge No. n having been proved against the petitioner, while charge No. I failed. Acting upon the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority (S.P.,West) proposed to impose a punishment of reduction to the minimum stage of scale for a period of two years requiring the petitioner to furnish second show cause and also allowing the petitioner for personal hearing by provisional order dated 21.10.1991. The petitioner participated in personal hearing on 4.11.1991 and after hearing him, final order of penalty was passed vide D.O. No. 931 dated 25.2.1992 as already mentioned above. The petitioner preferred appeal which was also failed as already stated.

(3.) The petitioner challenged the impugned order on the following grounds: -