SHYAMAL KR DAS Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.A.K.Bhowmik, learned senior counsel being assisted by Mr. A.K.Deb, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) Though there appears to be a formal defect in the writ petition as two separate causes of action have been combined, yet having regard to the fact that this case has been pending for over almost a decade now, this court is not inclined to refuse to the writ petitioner an adjudication on the merits of the controversy.

(3.) The facts, in brief, may be noted as hereunder:- The writ petitioner was appointed as a Sub-Inspector of Police by an order dated 16.10.1989. The aforesaid appointment was made on the basis of the recommendation of the Public Service Commission and was against a vacancy earmarked for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes. The petitioner at the time of his selection and prior to his appointment had claimed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste and had furnished a certificate to that effect which was issued by the competent authority some time in the year 1981. The petitioner continued to be in service for about two years and in the year 1991, the caste certificate given to the petitioner was cancelled by the authority by an order dated 16.3.1991 after issuing a show cause notice to the writ petitioner which according to the authority was not responded to. Thereafter, it appears that a charge Memo, dated 3.7.1991 along with the statement of Article of Charges and statement of imputation in support of the charges had been served upon the writ petitioner. The essence of the charge brought against the writ petitioner is that though he is not a member of the Scheduled Castes community, yet he had represented himself to be a Scheduled Caste candidate and on that basis, secured employment under the State. The writ petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause and the authority not being satisfied, appointed an Enquiry Officer to hold an inquiry into the charges levelled against the writ petitioner. The Enquiry Officer after a detailed inquiry, in course of which a large number of witnesses were examined, submitted a report dated 27.2.1992 exonerating the writ petitioner of the charges levelled. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings reached by the Enquiry Officer and on the basis of the materials and evidence, adduced in the course of the inquiry, came to the conclusion that the charges against the writ petitioner were proved. Accordingly, the punishment of dismissal from service was proposed against the writ petitioner and he was asked to show cause against the proposed punishment. The petitioner unsuccessfully showed cause and eventually by a final order dated 21.3.1993, the petitioner was dismissed from service. Aggrieved, the instant writ petition has been filed.