STATE OF TRIPURA Vs. NALINI KANTA MAJUMDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal instituted by the State of Tripura and other State functionaries, the judgment dated 14.3.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.R. No. 271 of 1991 has been called in question.

(2.) The material facts giving rise to the writ proceeding are that the respondent- petitioner while working as Upper Division Clerk (UDA) in the office of the Sub Registrar Dharma Nagar, North Tripura faced a disciplinary proceeding on the charge that he contracted a second marriage during the life time of his first wife which is a misconduct within the meaning of the Service Conduct rules applicable to him. After an enquiry into the charge framed against him, he was found guilty and was punished with compulsory retirement invoking the provisions under FR 56 (J). In the writ petition, the said penalty was put under challenge on the ground that FR 56(J) could not be pressed into service as the respondent -petitioner did not complete 50 years of age. The second limb of argument advanced before the learned Single Judge is that the copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to him though it is the basic requirement in order to provide an opportunity to make suitable representation against the said report and thus, the principles of natural justice was violated. The third contention advanced is that no notice was served upon him with regard to the proposed penalty which is also, according to him, a legal requirement. Learned Single Judge accepted the last two arguments relating to non-service of notice about the proposed penalty and non- supply of the enquiry report and on these; grounds quashed the impugned order of punishment with a direction to reinstated the petitioner in service. The learned Single Judge, however, remitted the case back to the disciplinary authority with a direction, to issue notice indicating proposed punishment along with the copy of the enquiry report and to give opportunity to the petitioner to show cause before passing order regarding penalty other than the penalty of dismissal or removal or compulsory retire ment form service. Though the State and the other appellants have filed the present appeal, the direction to reinstate the respondent petitioner was carried out and as a result, the petitioner has been in servio3 since his reinstatement in 2000.

(3.) We have heard Mr. D. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. K. N. Bhattacharjee, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Acharjee, learned advocate for the respondent writ petitioner.