BHAJAN CHANDRA DEBNATH Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was an Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in the office of the Forest Department who faced a departmental proceeding under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on the charge of abusing and misbehaving with one Chandan Kumar Nandi, Typist in the office of the Inquiring authority on 10.3.2000 where he went to collect a document under instruction of the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Working Plan Division No. II with whom he was attached. He challenged the proceeding in W.P. (C) No. 11 of 2003 which was disposed of on 11.6.03 with direction to complete the proceeding within a period of 45 days from the date of the order with a further stipulation that if the proceeding was nol: completed within a period of 45 days for reasons not attributable to any conduct of the petitioner, the said writ petition would be survived. The proceeding was concluded within that, period by issuing a final order on 25.7.03 imposing a penalty of withholding of one increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect. A copy of the enquiry report dated 25.7.03 along with the order of penalty passed on the same date were served upon him on 1.8.03. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the enquiry report and the order of penalty and prayed for quashing the same with a further direction to revive W.P. (C) No. 11 of 2003.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that by judgment dated 13.3.01 in the Civil Rule No. 394/94, this court directed for completion of the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner within a period of four months and on conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding if he stands exonerated the authority would consider his case for promotion to the rank of Accountant/O.S. and if found suitable necessary order of promotion should be passed with effect from the date when his juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits and this exercise should be completed within a period of 45 days from the date of completion of the disciplinary proceeding. The proceedings which were the subject matter of the said Civil Rule had ended favourably exonerating him from the charges, but the respondents did not promote him and thus, wilfully violated the aforesaid directions. This prompted him to file a contempt petition being Cont. Case (C) No. 30/02 which was disposed of on 11.6.03 with a direction that on the completion of the departmental proceeding which is the subject matter of W.P. (C) No. 11 of 2003 and depending on the outcome of the said proceeding, the directions contained in the order dated 13.3.01 of Civil Rule No. 394 of 1994 should be implemented within a period of 15 days from the date of completion of the said proceeding. But the proceeding having been gone against him imposing a penalty of withholding of one increment the aforesaid directions to consider his promotion were not implemented depriving him of the benefit of promotion and this has happened due to the impugned order which is illegal and void as it was passed without supplying him a copy of the enquiry report before passing of the final order denying thereby the right to defend and to natural justice.

(3.) The respondents raised to dispute about the factual position as adumbrated by the petitioner but continued that by non-furnishing of copy of the enquiry report before passing of the final order of penalty, no prejudice was caused to him as the penalty was a minor one and for imposing a minor penalty, the authority could resort to the short-cut procedure under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules instead of Rule 14 thereof and such short-cut enquiry does not provide for supply of copy of the enquiry report.