SAILENDRA KR DEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.6.1994 passed by the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala being first appellate court in title Appeal No. 39 of 1994, corrected judgment dated 31.8.1994 allowing the appeal and setting aside the trial court judgment and decree dated 11.5.1984 (decree dated 21.5.1984) passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, West Tripua, Agartala in Title Suit No. 13 of 1981.

(2.) Briefly stated, the plaintiff- appellant's (hereinafter called the "plaintiff) case is as follows : The plaintiff entered into public service under the Union of India on 26.8.1968 as an SSB personnel under the SSB Area Organiser, Tripura. While the plaintiff had been serving as such, he was put under suspension vide order dated 6.12.1977 in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. The back ground leading to suspension was that on 19.11.1977, the plaintiff while was performing Centry Duty at Coy. HQ. at Baikhora, the Commander Shri D.P. Khorana came to the spot and complained that the plaintiff was not discharging his duties. on 2.12.1977, the plaintiff was awarded seven days' confinement for the aforesaid lack of duties. The plaintiff thereafter requested the Coy. Commander to allow him to prefer an appeal to the Commandant SSB Coy. Tripura, but instead allowing the plaintiff to avail the appeal opportunity he was put under suspension. A formal proceeding was drawn up vide Memo, dated 18.1.1978 against the plaintiff on two heads of charges, firstly for the mis- conduct in that he refused to accept seven days' confinement awarded upon him and secondly he was not discharging his duties properly. Formal inquiry was held, but the copy of the report was not supplied to the plaintiff, on the contrary the Commandant vide order dated 3.5.1978 inflicted the punishment of seven days' confinement on the plaintiff. The plaintiff was not afforded any reasonable opportunity to defend his case though he was not guilty in any way. The witnesses examined did not support the charge. The authority vide Memo. dated 19.6.1978 initiated another proceeding against the plaintiff on the ground that he refused to accept the punishment. Thereafter, the Divisional Organiser, SSB, Siliguri vide order dated 19.10.1979 dismissed the plaintiff from service and that was communicated by the Commandant, SSB Coys, Tripura on 30.10.1979. On 21.11.1979 the plaintiff made a representation to the President of India vindicating his grievances but of no avail, hence the suit challenging the dismissal order.

(3.) The defendant-respondent (hereinafter called the "respondent") having filed written statement contested the case contending, inter alia, that on 19.11.1977 at about 1215 hours the plaintiff was supposed to be in Sentry duty at Quarters Guard at Coy. headquarters, Baikhora, but was found absent from duty spot during the visit of Coy. Commander Shri D.P. Khurana and as such he was awarded seven days' confinement but he did not comply the order and as such he was kept under suspension, ordered for disciplinary proceeding and on conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding he was awarded with punishment of seven days' confinement in Quarters Guard duty. Since the plaintiff refused to carry out the order Memorandum of Charges was issued but he did not participate in the proceeding; even he did not put forward his plea of "not guilty" rather he moved the High Court with a writ petition bearing No. Civil Rule 22 of 1979 which was dismissed by this Court on 5.9.1979. Since the plaintiff failed to carry out the lawful order of punishment imposed upon him, he was dismissed from service by the impugned order. Hence according to the respondent, the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief in the present case.