ADHIR CHANDRA CHOWDHURY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein, namely, Sri Adhir Chandra Chowdhury, while serving as Forest Ranger at Laxmipur in Kanchanpur Sub-Division, withdrew an amount of Rs. 30,000/- , on 15. 11. 89, from the cash deposit of Dasda Branch of Tripura Gramin Bank. Out of the amount so withdrawn, the petitioner disbursed an amount of about Rs. 19,000/- and kept the remaining money amounting to Rs. 11,885/- with him in one of the rooms of his official residence and slept in the other room of his residence as usual. On 19. 11. 89, the petitioner lodged FIR with the local police station informing the police that some miscreants, on the night of 18. 11. 89 entered into his residence and took away the said amount of Rs. 11,885/- lying in his almirah along with some other materials. As the instructions issued by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Tripura, Agartala, vide his Memo F-1-3/2/for-83/acctt/7997-8546,dated 03. 02. 1984, forbids that heavy cash should not be retained in the DFO's Office/range Offices or in Beat Office. Plantation Centres, Soil Conservator centres. Drop Gates, etc. and that whenever money is required for payment, the amount should be drawn and paid on the same day without taking risk of keeping the cash overnight and, further, that in no case, the undisbursed Government cash should exceed Rs. 500/- , the petitioner faced disciplinary proceeding for disobeying the instructions of the higher authorities concerned by retaining with him as much as Rs. 11,885/- in cash, although a CD account No. 11 stood opened in Dasda Branch of Tripura Gramin Bank. On receiving the show cause notice, in this regard, issued by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner submitted his reply thereto, wherein he did not dispute the fact that the amount, in question, was stolen away from his official residence; but what he pleaded was that the said amount was retained and could not be disbursed on account of unavoidable reasons, for, the Bank was located at a distance of about 2 Kms. from his official residence. Not satisfied with the reply so received from the petitioner, the disciplinary authority appointed an enquiry officer, who conducted the enquiry and submitted the report holding the petitioner guilty of the charge. A copy of the enquiry report was served on the petitioner and he made his representation against the said finding. Upon consideration of the enquiry report and the representation of the petitioner, the respondent No. 2, as the disciplinary authority, held the petitioner guilty of the charge and imposed a penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect and with further direction that the amount of Rs. 11,885. 20, which was the loss sustained by the Government, shall be recovered from the petitioner's salary in monthly instalments of Rs. 500/- till the entire amount was recovered.

(2.) AGAINST the penalty so imposed, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was turned down by the appellate authority, namely, the respondent No. 1, on 28. 07. 1994 (Communicated to the petitioner on 05. 08. 1994 ). The petitioner has, now, impugned in this writ petition, the finding of guilt reached against him and the penalty imposed on him seeking to get, inter alia, quashed the same.

(3.) I have heard Mr. B. Das, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Ms. S. Das, appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. R. Das Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.