PANNALAL GANGULI Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of 14.3.91 of the Government of Tripura placing the petitioner under suspension. The impugned order of suspension runs as follows:

(2.) Mr. G.C. Chakravorty, learned counsel for the State of Tripura has raised an objection that the writ petition is not maintainable as statutory remedy provided under rule 23 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, for short, 'the Rules' as adopted in State of Tripura, has not been exhausted.

(3.) Under rule 23 of the Rules, subject to provisions of rule 22 of the Rules, a Government servant may prefer an appeal against an order of suspension made under rule 10. Under rule 22, no appeal shall lie against any order made by the Governor. The above order was made under rule 10 and was expressed to be made in the name of the Governor. Under Art. 166(2) and (3) of the Constitution, Rules called the Rules of Executive Business of the Government of Tripura have been made by the Governor. Under rule 4 of the Rules of Executive Business, the business of the Government shall be transacted in the Departments specified in the First Schedule, and shall be classified and distributed between those Departments as laid down therein. Under rule 4 of the Rules of Executive Business, the Governor shall on the advice of the Chief Minister allot among the Ministers the business of the Government by assigning one or more Departments to the charge of a Minister. Rule 11 of the Rules of Executive Business provides that all orders or instrument made or executed by or on behalf of the Government of the State shall be expressed to be made or executed in the name of the Governor.