RANENDU MAJUMDER Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the state respondents. While the writ petitioner was detailed for providing security to one V.K. Baranwal, IRS, deputed as the Central Observer by the Election Commission of India for Sabroom for the period from 28.03.1994 to 05.04.1994, on 01.04.1994 at about 1400 hours the Central Observer and eight other members of the escort party while taking rest at Sabroom Inspection Bunglow, the petitioner alongwith another Rifleman Prananath Sarkar went to a local restaurant by vehicle bearing registration No. TRT-5067 for taking lunch. After taking lunch there, while they were on the way back to the inspection bungalow the petitioner had picked up quarrel with one civilian reportedly a newspaper hawker, namely Dipak Chakraborty. Thereafter, he came back to the said bungalow and took his rifle and went back to Sabroom town alone and started indiscriminate firing without any permission from his Commander namely, N.K. Jerman Baskey. He fired 13 rounds. On complaint of said Dipak Chakraborty, Sabroom P.S. Case No. 13/94 under Sections 307/ 323/ 448/ 427/ 34 of IPC was registered against the petitioner and taken up for investigation. Admittedly, the petitioner was arrested in connection with the said case on 01.04.1994 and was in custody since 12.04.1994. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the order vide No. TSR/Pers/88010559/RM/94/1740-43, dated 04.04.1994 (Annexure-A to the writ petition).

(2.) The order of suspension dated 04.04.1994, the memorandum of proceeding vide No. TSR/Pers/88010559/RM/94/8114, dated 22.08.1994 (Annexure-E to the writ petition) as well as the order of punishment on culmination of the departmental proceeding as passed by the Commandant, 1st Bn., Tripura State Rifles, hereinafter for short 'Commandant', vide No. TSR/Pers/DP-1/95/26603-05, dated 15.05.1995 (Annexure-J to the writ petition) have been challenged by this writ petition couched with a prayer for direction to reinstate the petitioner in service with full pay and allowances for the period from 01.04.1994 for all purposes and intent.

(3.) It was averred in the writ petition that from 13.04.1994 till 19.04.1994 the petitioner was ill and in support of that contention a medical certificate (Annexure-B to the writ petition) has been appended. The petitioner further contended that from 19.04.1994 to 24.06.1994 he was under treatment at Belonia Hospital on receiving serious injuries in a scooter accident. A photocopy of the Bed Head Ticket of Belonia Hospital has been appended at Annexure-C to the writ petition. The petitioner further contended that on 03.05.1994 the petitioner had submitted a prayer to the Commandant through a messenger intimating that he was under treatment. However, ultimately the petitioner sought to resume duties. In para 11 of the writ petition, the petitioner averred that on 20.04.1994 the Commandant, the respondent No. 2 herein, passed an order imposing punishment of seven days' quarter guard. It was also ordered that the so called absence of the petitioner from 13.04.1994 to 20.04.1994 would be regularised by granting him extraordinary leave. It was not understandable to the petitioner that while on suspension how the extraordinary leave could be granted. The petitioner's further grievance as canvassed in the writ petition is that by asking the petitioner to discharge duties as the rifleman during his period of suspension is per contra to the conditions of service. Apart that, it has been stated that he was not allowed subsistence allowance any time during the suspension period, resorting to the arbitrary means. The petitioner having not paid the subsistence allowance for the period from 01.04.1994 could not manage to stay in the headquarters. Even he could not maintain his family. Having been persuaded by such stringency, the petitioner filed previously another writ petition being Civil Rule No. 433/1994 for quashing of the order of suspension.