RAMESH CHANDRA DEBNATH Vs. TRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment dated 24.11.2000 passed by a Single Judge of this court (B. B. Deb, J) in Civil Rule No. 558 of 1997 has been called in question in the present writ appeal. By the said judgment, learned Single Judge refused to interfere with the minor penalty of 'censure' imposed upon the appellant herein by the disciplinary authority.

(2.) We have heard Mr. M. N. Indu, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A. C. Debnath, learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) The petitioner was a driver under the Tripura Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation'), a State Government undertaking. He was placed under suspension on 26.8.96 in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding. On 12.9.96, a disciplinary proceeding against him was formally initiated and charge was framed alleging that on 24.8.96 while the appellant was driving a truck he was found carrying 20 cases of fish unauthorisedly with a mala fide intention to earn money for his personal monetary gain. One Babul Debbarma and another Sudhangshu Saha, both traffic supervisors of the said Corporation detected the aforesaid unauthorized activity of the appellant when they were on line checking duty. It was further alleged in the said charge that the appellant misbehaved with the said officials when they asked him to handover the log sheet of the vehicle. The disciplinary authority, however, decided to proceed against the appellant with a view to impose a minor penalty if he was found guilty of the alleged misconduct. On 21.11.96 after less than three months, the suspension order was revoked and he was reinstated in service. As it was decided to proceed for a minor penalty, the procedure laid down in rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) rules, 1965 (for short, 'the rules') which provides for a summary procedure, was followed. The appellant was asked to show cause on the charges so framed to which he submitted his reply. However, the reasons shown in his reply were not found satisfactory and he was afforded opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his plea of innocence which he refused to do. On 16.11.96, he was asked for personal hearing which, however, had to be adjourned to 21.12.96, 25.1.97, 15.3.97. Finally on 19.4.97 personal hearing was actually taken. The appellant during his personal hearing made a prayer for exoneration from the charges. On 3.5.97, the Managing Director being the disciplinary authority of the Corporation imposed a minor penalty of'censure'. As regards the period of suspension for less than three months, it was directed that the same would be treated as not on duty.