NARAYAN CH DEY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The validity of the order dated 14.6.1995 imposing upon the petitioner the penalty of reduction of his pay to the lowest of the time scale for a period of two years and the departmental enquiry proceedings in connection therewith is called into question in this writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner is serving as Forester in the Department of Forest. Government of Tripura and was at the material time functioning as Attached Officer to the Beat Officer, Ramsankar Para Beat in the Teliamura Division. In the year 1992, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the following articles of charges:

(3.) By the memorandum dated 3.2.92, the petitioner was required to submit his written statement of defence, which was duly submitted by him wherein he denied any act of misconduct committed by him and prayed for exoneration from the charges. The prayer for dropping the charges was not accepted and the departmental enquiry was directed to be proceeded against him. The respondents appointed an Enquiry Officer, Presenting Officer and, on the request of the petitioner, a defence assistant whereafter the enquiry got commenced. In the course of enquiry, the Department examined as many as four witnesses to bring home the charges against the petitioner. The Department also exhibited eight documents i.e. P-1 to P-8 to substantiate its case. The petitioner cited one defence witness but he was examined as P.W. No. 1. On the conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges made against the petitioner were established and accordingly submitted his report to the disciplinary authority (the respondent No. 3). The respondent No. 3 agreed with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and proposed to impose a penalty of reducing the pay of the petitioner to the lowest of his time scale of pay for a period of two years without earning any increment of pay during such period and without affecting his future increment after the expiry of such period. Therefore, the petitioner was called upon to submit his representation against the proposed penalty within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice. The petitioner promptly submitted his representation, which is at Annexure-8. After considering the said representation, the respondent No. 3 imposed the penalty as proposed earlier. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before the appellate authority (the respondent No. 2), who, however, dismissed the appeal by the order dated 24.10.1995. Hence, this writ petition came to be filed.