MANIK MAJUMDER Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Writ Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 6. 3. 2000 of learned Single Judge of this High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 31 of 2000, whereby, the writ petition was dismissed summarily at the admission stage.

(2.) IN the impugned order dated 6. 3. 2000 learned Single Judge has observed that a sum of Rs. 27,850/- was allocated to the writ petitioner for execution of certain work and on the allegation of non execution of work a regular disciplinary proceeding was conducted against him in which he was found guilty, therefore, the above amount of Rs. 27,850/- was directed to be recovered from the writ petitioner as he has already availed the opportunity of filing the appeal before the competent authority. In these circumstances, no indulgence was made by the learned Single Judge of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and writ petition was accordingly dismissed summarily.

(3.) THE facts necessary for adjudication of the present Writ appeal is that the writ petitioner was appointed initially on 16. 1. 1987 as Panchayat Secretary under the Directorate of Panchayat and during the year 1995, an amount of Rs. 27,850/- was allocated to him for Lowgung Gaon Panchayat for implementation of various projects. According to the writ petitioner, at the relevant time, Srimati Photorani Majumder, Pradhan and Sri Satyapriya Bhowmik, were Pradhan and Upa Pradhan respectively, who were said to have been disbursed with the above money for execution of the work in question against different receipts alleged to have been obtained by the writ petitioner. The work was executed, however, the required certification of completion of work could not be obtained from them because of some differences which had arisen between the Pradhan and Upa Pradhan on one hand and the writ petitioner on the other hand, however, when utilization of the allocated fund and the verification of work execution was not made, the matter was reported to the State officials and Block Development Officer, (B. D. O.), who had made an preliminary inquiry reported the matter to the Director Panchayat, Government of Tripura. Accordingly, the Director of Panchayat even demanded necessary documents and statement of imputation of misconduct etc. for preparation of the charge sheet. A Memorandum dated 20. 1. 1999 was issued where by the writ petitioner was informed that an action under Rule 16 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 (in short CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965) in reference the statement of imputation of misconduct/misbehaviour action was proposed to be taken against the writ petitioner. Opportunity was provided to the writ petitioner to make representation, and after considering his representation, an order dated 30. 3. 1999 by Director of Panchayat was passed, whereby, it was indicated that the petitioner was responsible for misappropriation of government amount of Rs. 27,850/- and, accordingly, Director of Panchayat Raj being a disciplinary authority has indicated that the entire misappropriate amount of Rs. 27,850/- was required to be refunded by the writ petitioner and in case of default, the amount was to be recovered by Drawing and Disbursing Officer from the salary of the writ petitioner in installments at the rate 1/3 of his salary.