BIDHAN CH DEY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks for issuing an appropriate writ quashing/ setting aside the impugned order of suspension dated 22.2.1991 and also the order of dismissal dated 21.9.1994 and also seeks for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to re-instate the petitioner in service with all retrospective service benefits.

(2.) The petitioner's case, in short, is as follows: While the petitioner had been in service as a Rifleman being posted under B Company of Tripura State Rifles, he was implicated in a murder case and as such the petitioner was kept under suspension vide order bearing No. TSR/85010746/BCD/Pers/91/5871-76dated 25.2.1991 (Annexure-A)w.e.f. 22.2.1991 on rTrvTrrnvm the ground of pendency of the criminal case viz. NutanbazarP.S. Case No. 6(2)91 under Section 302 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner was charge sheeted in the aforesaid criminal case and faced trial and unfortunately the petitioner was convicted under Section 302 IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur and he was sentenced to suffer R.I. for life vide judgment dated 8.7.1994. Few days after the conviction, the appointing authority, respondent No. 3 issued a notice upon the petitioner bearing No. TSR/Pers/85010746/BCD/94/8071 dated 20.8.1994 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why on conviction of the petitioner he should not be dismissed from service as a measure of penalty. The petitioner received the same and while he had been in the Central Jail, Agartala he furnished the show cause reply informing the authority that he already preferred appeal, but unfortunately the Commandant, appointing authority vide letter No. TSR/85010746/BCD/91/8596-8603 dated 21.9.1994 dismissed the petitioner from service. The petitioner prosecuted the appeal vigorously and he was, of late, acquitted in appeal by the Hon'ble High Court vide judgment dated 12.3.1996 from the charge of murder. On 1.7.1996 the petitioner made a representation to the appointing authority demanding re-instatement in service with all service benefits. On receipt of the said representation the Commandant asked the petitioner to submit the legible copy of the judgment of the High Court and the petitioner complied the same by registered post. Since the Commandant did not respond, the petitioner made another representation to the Chief Secretary on 23.9.1996 demanding reinstatement in service and the Chief Secretaiy vide his letter bearing No. F.2( 1 )-CS/Court/ 96 dated 1.10.1996 informed the petitioner that his representation had been transmitted to the competent authority and the Commandant, 1 st Bn. TSR and Director General of Police would do the needful, but since the petitioner received no response either from the Commandant or front the Director General of Police, being compelled, filed this writ petition seeking the relietfs as already mentioned above.

(3.) All the respondents including the Director General of Police and Commandant contested the petition by filing joint counter- affidavit. The cpunter-affidavit contains that since the petitioner convicted by a competent criminal court under Section 302 IPC (culpable homicide amounting to murder) and also tunder Section 27 of the Arms Act, the petitioner was rightly dealt with and in view of Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 no formal inquiry was called for and the petitioner was dismissed from service following his conviction in the criminal case.