STATE OF TRIPURA Vs. KARTIK CHANDRA DEBABARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. U.B. Saha, learned Sr. Government Advocate assisted by Mr. T.D. Majumdar for the appellant-State. Also heard Dr. J.C. Das, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The respondent was working as Panchayat Secretary, Jirania Block under the Government of Tripura. By order dated 3.11.98, the Director of Panchayat, Government of Tripura informed the respondent that he was proposing to take action against him under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Along with the said order, the statement of imputation of misconduct/misbehaviour alleged against the respondent was enclosed and the respondent was asked to submit representation against the proposed action. The respondent submitted the representation on 18.11.98, but the explanation in the said representation was not accepted and by order dated 23.6.99, the Director of Panchayat passed an order imposing minor penalty against the respondent. The respondent filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of punishment before the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Department of Panchayat. the appellate authority. But, by order dated 19.9.00 the said appeal was rejected by the Commissioner-cum- Secretary., Department of Panchayat. Aggrieved, the respondent filed the Writ petition [W.P.(C) No. 506 of 2000]. In reply to the averments in the writ petition, Mr. Bidur Chandra Debbarma, Under Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Department of Panchayat filed an affidavit-in-opposition. By the impugned judgment and order dated 12.4.01, the learned Single Judge held that the Director of Panchayat who was the disciplinary authority and imposed the punishment and the Commissioner-cum-Secretary who decided the appeal had not come forward to swear any affidavit and the affidavit had been sworn by the Under Secretary, Panchayat Department. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge also held that in absence of specific authorisation in favour of the Under Secretary, Panchayat Department, he was not competent to swear the affidavit on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) Mr. U.B. Saha, learned Sr. Government Advocate for the appellant- State submitted that the learned Single Judge thereafter decided the matter on merit without taking into consideration the averments and contentions raised by the State respondents in the said affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Under Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Department of Panchayat. Mr. Saha referred to the provisions of Rules of Executive Business to show that the Under Secretary of a Department is competent to sign any instrument on behalf of the Government. He further argued that under the provisions of Civil Procedure Code (CPC), the Under Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Department of Panchayat & Rural development was authorised to swear the affidavit on behalf of the respondent-Government. He also referred to the provisions of Gauhati High Court Rules relating to swearing of affidavit. Dr. J.C. Das, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, vehemently contended that the learned Single Judge rightly rejected the affidavit-in-opposition sworn by the Under Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Department of Panchayat & Rural Development on behalf of the respondents.