NEPAL CH DEBNATH Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Rifleman in the Tripura State Rifles (for short, 'tsr') in the year 1985. He was attached to 1st Bn. TSR. He was promoted to the post of Lance Naik in the year 1989 and to the post of Naik in 1993. He was then attached to 'd' Coy of 2nd Bn. TSR. On 29. 6. 94, he was placed under suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding and Sri I. M. Singha, Deputy Commandant was detailed on 30. 6. 94 as inquiry officer to find out circumstances under which the petitioner absented himself from duty of the rear store from 27. 6. 94 at 1130 hrs. to 28. 6. 94 at 0330 hrs. The said inquiry officer recorded the statement of the petitioner during the course of inquiry wherein the petitioner admitted that he had left the place of his duty, gone his home at Bishalgarh and spent the night there without informing anybody and without obtaining permission of the competent authority. The petitioner was awarded censure by the Commandant, 2nd Bn. , TSR, the fourth respondent herein under Section 11 (m) of the Tripura State Rifles Act, 1983 (for short, 'the Act' ). It is, however, the plea of the petitioner different from his statement to the Inquiry officer that though he reported for duty on 27. 6. 94 at 1800 hrs to replace Havildar N. G. Singha, he was informed that Shri Singh had received no instruction to handover the duty. The petitioner then informed the Adjutant immediately about this position who advised him to sleep anywhere at night and come the next morning. This specific plea taken in the writ petition, however, is absent in the statement recorded by the inquiry officer. The petitioner has assailed this order of punishment on the ground that it is not a speaking order, has not disclosed under which provision the same was imposed and contains no indication whether the inquiry report was taken into consideration.

(2.) THE petitioner went on earned leave from 5. 2. 96 to 15. 3. 96 with the approval of the competent authority. But of 15. 3. 96, he fell sick and on the advice on the Medical Officer, he continued to remain on leave. On 17. 4. 96, he applied for 45 days medical leave with effect from 16. 3. 96, which was, however, sanctioned later. But, for extension of the leave without prior permission he was again awarded a punishment of censure under Section 11 (m) of the Act on 13. 5. 96. It is his contention that the second punishment of censure was also without any communication to the petitioner and without holding any inquiry affording him opportunity of defending himself.

(3.) THE name of the petitioner was included in list 'c' for promotion to the post of Havildar. The list was prepared under rule (4) of Tripura State Rifles (Discipline, Control, Service Conditions, etc.) Rules, 1986 (for short, 'the Rules') containing 10 Naiks including the petitioner. All the Naiks of the list were sent for a training course for the period from 18. 9. 95 to 17. 10. 95. The petitioner like other Naiks had successfully completed the training. Though all the 9 Naiks were promoted to the post of Havildar on 25. 11. 95, the petitioner was denied the promotion, which is in violation of the provisions of sub-rule (3) of rule (4) of the Rules. Being aggrieved, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Commandant of the 2nd Bn who explained the reasons for not promoting the petitioner to the post of Havildar in his letter dated 29. 7. 96 which also has been assailed by this writ petition. It has been contended in the reply that his service records regarding punishments of 'severely censured' stood in the way of the promotion to the post of Havildar. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) declared him "failed" on consideration of the service records and because of that reason though the petitioner had done better during training he could not be promoted. Further contention recorded in that letter is that a review DPC Board was held on 26. 6. 96 at 1st Bn. TSR and the petitioner was asked to attend the DPC Board. But he declined to do so and refused to give reasons for not attending the said DPC. The petitioner, however, denied the said contention that he was ever asked to attend the review meeting of the DPC. In the premises noted above, it is the prayer of the petitioner that the order dated 5. 6. 96 (Annexure-G) which records that the petitioner was awarded by the Commandant, 2nd Bn censure on 4. 6. 96 for an offence committed under Section 11 (n) of the Act, 1983 and the communication dated 29. 7. 96 (Annexure-H) whereby the petitioner was informed by the Commandant about the reasons for not promoting him to the post of Havildar should be quashed and a direction should be given to promote the petitioner to the post of Havildar with effect from 29. 11. 95.