STATE OF TRIPURA Vs. SUSHENDRA KUMAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by the State of Tripura and Others which raises some interesting questions of law is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31st of January, 1991 of learned District Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar by which the judgment and decree of the learned trial court were affirmed.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff was that while he was serving as Forester under the Forest Department, Govt. of Tripura, a disciplinary proceeding was drawn up against him by the Chief Conservator of Forests under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 on the allegation that he married one Smti. Gita Rani Malakar during the life time of his first wife Smti. Anju Nath. An article of charge was framed to the above effect and after enquiry the plaintiff was found to have married Smti. Gita Rani Malakar during the life time of his first wife. Accordingly, after completion of the enquiry, the enquiring authority made the finding that the plaintiff married for the second time during the life tune of his first wife. Thereafter he submitted the report to the disciplinary authority, namely, the Chief Conservator of Forests who after perusal of the findings of the enquiring authority accepted the findings of the enquiring authority and proposed to remove the plaintiff from his service. He, therefore, called upon the plaintiff to submit his representation within a period of fifteen days as to why he should not be removed from the service. The plaintiff made his submission in response to that notice but the Chief Conservator of Forests, namely, the disciplinary authority passed the order of his removal with effect from 18.3.1983. The plaintiff thereafter preferred an appeal before the appellate authority but the appellate authority by his order dated 2.5.1983 rejected the appeal. The plaintiff thereafter filed a review petition but that review petition also faced the same fate.

(3.) Therefore, the plaintiff filed the instant suit for quashing the order of removal on the ground that the entire disciplinary proceeding was vitiated by reason of the fact that during the material time the Rule 21 of the C.C.S. (Conduct) Rules was not in force in Tripura. It was stated that the charge which was framed against the plaintiff did not bear signature of the disciplinary authority and as such it had no validity in the eye of law. It was further stated that even though the plaintiff denied the charge, the enquiring authority without basis of any evidence and without adhering to the principles of natural justice made the findings against the plaintiff. The further case of the plaintiff was that the enquiry was held in utter violation of the rules and that the enquiring authority was biased right from the beginning as during the course of enquiry he also passed some biased remarks against the plaintiff. It was also stated that the appellate authority without application of his mind to the facts of the case dismissed the appeal by a cryptic order. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit for quashing the order of punishment removing him from the service.