BACCHU MIAH Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. A. Ghosh, learned State counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner who was serving as the Assistant Investigator under the Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Govt. of Tripura did not attend his duty for a long period from 11-05-1993 till filing of the memorandum of charges on 19-09-1994. Having no knowledge of the said proceeding the petitioner filed a petition before this Court challenging the action of the respondents for not allowing him to resume the duties. The said writ petition being W.P(C) No. 203 of 2002 was ultimately withdrawn by the petitioner when he came to know that the disciplinary proceeding had been drawn up against him. By the order dated 19-11-2007 this Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with liberty.

(2.) It appears from the records so produced by Mr. A. Ghosh, learned State Counsel and also from the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that on receipt of the memorandum of charges the petitioner filed the written statement and he also denied the charges when the preliminary hearing was carried out by the inquiring authority but thereafter he did not attend the proceeding without any information to the inquiring authority or to the disciplinary authority. It is also contended by the respondents that notwithstanding the notices those were sent for securing attendance of the petitioner, he did not attend the proceeding and ultimately the report dated 18-10-1999 as submitted by the inquiring authority on completion of the inquiry was received by the disciplinary authority and the said report of the inquiring authority gave finding in no uncertain terms against the petitioner holding that the charges of absenting from duties unauthorizedly w.e.f 11-05-1993 onwards, intentional failure to resume his duties by violating the repeated directions of his superior authority, non-submission of any application for leave along with the medical certificate as required by the relevant leave rules and for making no response to the official memorandum asking him to explain reasons as to why the disciplinary action should not be taken against him for his prolonged unauthorized absence w.e.f. 11-05-1993 have substantially been proved.

(3.) The disciplinary authority by the office order dated 02-12-1995 on consideration of the said inquiry report imposed penalty of removal from service with immediate effect. After more than 6(six) years the petitioner filed a statutory appeal, but the appellate authority dismissed the said appeal dated 04-12-2007 as barred by limitation. The petitioner, as relentless as he was, filed an application to the Chief Secretary to the State for review of the order of the disciplinary authority and the Chief Secretary on affording due opportunity of hearing on 26-05-2008 disposed the said review proceeding by the order dated 16-06-2008 holding that: