STATE OF TRIPURA Vs. DILIP RANJAN DATTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala dated 21.12.1981 whereby learned Additional District Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiff.

(2.) To appreciate the contentions canvassed at the Bar by learned counsel for the parties, the facts relevant for the purpose may be stated as under. The plaintiff who is the respondent before me filed a suit for setting aside/ quashing the order dated 6.8.75 and 11.1.76 passed by the Commandant, Tripura Armed Police Battalion and Inspector General of Police, Tripura respectively dismissing him from the service and also for a decree of Rs. 19,486.00 as his pay and allowances for the period starting from 12.8.75 to 31.7.78. The plaintiffs case was that he joined as a Constible on 13.7.53 AD under the Police Department, Government of Tripura and he had been discharging the duties to the satisfaction of his superiors and due to extra-ordinary ability he was also rewarded. On 18.4.74 he was deployed along with a platoon at Durga Choumuhani, Agartala for the maintenance of law and order. While performing his duties at that place he apprehended a person named Nikhil Deb at about 7.45 PM and sent him to the Police Station in a vehicle of the Police Station. But after that incident an enquiry was made against the plaintiff and thereafter a departmental proceeding was started against him on the basis of a charge to the effect that while functioning as Head Constable in the Tripura Armed Police Battalion he assaulted one Shri Nikhil Chandra Deb on 18.4.74 between 1900 hours and 1945 hours under the influence of liquor. After framing of this charge, one Rafiqul Islam, Assistant Commandant, Tripura Armed Police Battalion was appointed Inquiry Officer to enquire into the charge against the plaintiff.

(3.) After his appointment as Inquiry Officer, Rafiqul Islam started the enquiry after service of notice to the plaintiff asking him to submit his written statement. Accordingly the plaintiff submitted his written statement denying the allegations of the charge. But the Inquiry Officer during his enquiry recorded the statements of a few witnesses, took the aid of some documentary evidence and thus after completing the enquiry submitted his report to the Commandant with the finding that although the plaintiff was found at fault, the matter needs consideration of the superior officers as the practise of detailment of TAP Battalion for maintaining law and order duty might deteriorate their efficiency for which they were not trained.