NIBARAN CHANDRA DAS Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Nibaran Chandra Das while working as Accountant in the Social Welfare Department under the respondents since 08. 09. 90, was placed under suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding. The suspension continued for 15 months. Thereafter he was reinstated. However, on 28. 02. 2001 a common proceeding under Rule 18 of the Central Civil Service (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 (for short C. C. S/c. C. A. Rules) against the petitioner and one Prasanta Debbarma, the Inspector of Schools at the relevant time, was drawn. Manipulation of certain tender documents by way of over-writing and correction for the benefit of some tenderers was the specific charge against the petitioner. The charge was found to be proved in the departmental inquiry where-upon on 31. 01. 2003 the disciplinary authority imposed on the petitioner a penalty of reduction of pay by 5 (five) increments from Rs. 8975 to Rs. 8100. The said proceeding was issued providing that the Governor would function as the disciplinary authority and would be competent to impose any of the penalties provided in rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. It is contended that inspite of such specific provision the order of penalty was issued by the Director of School Education, an authority much lower in position which is contrary to the initial order of the common proceeding. It has been observed in the appellate order that the Director of School Education could not act as disciplinary authority and therefore, the impugned order of penalty was not sustainable in law. The appeal was thus allowed. On 19. 08. 2004 the Governor of Tripura cancelled the entire proceeding.

(2.) THOUGH the common proceeding thus came to a fiasco with its annihilation by the order dated 19. 08. 2004 issued in the name of the Governor, the penalty imposed by order dated 31. 01. 2003 continued to have its away as the petitioner's pay reduced to Rs. 8100/- was not restored to Rs. 8975/- as on 31. 01. 2003. He went on presenting representation after representation on 22. 07. 2004, 11. 04. 2005, 22. 04. 2005 and finally on 16. 06. 2005 for restoring his pay to the original position, release of increments as admissible subsequent there to and release of part of the salary which was not paid to him as a consequence of the order of penalty which remained no longer. But all the representations aforementioned could evoke no response from the respondents with the result that the petitioner continued to get the reduced pay and remained deprived from the part of the salary he was entitled to following cancellation of the entire proceeding.

(3.) ON the contrary, on 18. 10. 2005 the second respondent herein issued a memorandum proposing to hold an enquiry only against the petitioner on self same charges. On 07. 11. 2005 the petitioner submitted his written statement briefly raising the question of maintainability of a fresh proceeding against him. Ignoring the objection on 23. 11. 2005 the respondent appointed the Inquiry Officer and the presenting officer and at that stage the petitioner chose to institute the present writ petition calling in question the maintainability of the fresh proceeding itself and praying for restoring his pay to the earlier petition, release of increments and part of the pay withheld following the penalty. On 20. 02. 2006 the petitioner obtained an interim order from this Court in C. M. Appl. No. 503 of 2005 whereby further proceeding of the departmental inquiry was stayed with liberty to the respondents to seek modification or cancellation of the said order. Accordingly, a prayer for vacation of the interim order under Clause (3) of the Article 226 of the Constitution was filed, but the same was rejected as respondents themselves sought adjournment, which cause the delay in disposal of the interim prayer.