STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS Vs. SWAPNA BHATTACHARJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner-respondent who was serving as Junior Social Education Organiser at Singirbil Social Education Centre under Kumarghat Inspectorate, North Tripura has been transferred to Sonatala Social Education Centre, Khowai, West Tripura by an order passed by the Director of Social Welfare & Social Education, Tripura on 24.12.94 against which, a representation was filed on 25.02.95, seeking modification of the said transfer order and accordingly, the order of transfer was modified by the Director vide order dated 11.09.95 transferring her to Chandipur Social Education Centre, Kumarghat Inspectorate at her own request. According to the appellants, pursuant to the order of transfer dated 24.12.94, the writ petitioner-respondent was released from Singirbil Social Education Centre vide order dated 03.04.95 with effect from 13.5.95, which was has been disputed by the writ petitioner-respondent and according to her, she was for the first time released from the said Education Centre vide order dated 28.12.95 with effect from 31.12.95 (A/N) and there after, she joined her place of posting in terms of the modified order dated 11.09.95. A notice dated 29.04.97 was thereafter, issued by the Director of Social Welfare & Social Education, asking the writ petitioner to show cause as to why disciplinary action would not be taken against her for non-compliance of the orders of her superior authority i.e. the order of transfer dated 24.12.94 as well as the order by which she was asked to submit application for leave for the period from 13.4.95 to 31.8.95, during which period, according to the appellants, she remained absent from duty which has, however, been highly disputed by the writ petitioner-respondent by stating that she has discharged her duties and in fact the various proposals submitted by her during the aforesaid period have been accepted by her superior authorities, while discharging her duties in Singirbil Education Centre. Thereafter, the Director passed an order on 24.10.97 treating the period of absence of the writ petitioner-respondent from 13.4.95 to 31.8.95 as 'dies non' as per proviso to FR 17(1). This order was challenged by the writ petitioner-respondent in Civil Rule No. 1/1998. The learned Single Judge, upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, vide judgment and order dated 6.8.2001 set aside the order dated 24.10.97 passed by the Director by holding that the said order was passed without holding a full-fledged departmental proceeding as prescribed under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. On the prayer of Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the appellants, the learned Single Judge by another order dated 6.8.2001 granted liberty to the appellants to proceed in accordance with law after complying with the aforesaid judgment.

(2.) We have heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants as well as Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

(3.) The learned State Counsel, referring to the order impugned in the writ petition dated 24.10.97 has contended that though the terminology 'dies non' has been used in the order, in fact that was an order passed under FR 17(1) as the authority upon enquiry conducted, came to the finding that the writ petitioner-respondent did perform her duties from 13.4.95 to 31.8.95. It has been submitted that as the order dated 24.10.97 is not a punishment within the meaning of Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, a full-fledged enquiry is not required to be conducted, as directed by the learned Single Judge. It has further been submitted that there is no doubt that before passing an order under FR 17(1), a notice is required to be issued, which in fact was issued by the Director on 29.04.97. Therefore, learned State Counsel submits that as the order dated 24.10.97 impugned in the writ petition has been passed after giving reasonable opportunity of showing cause to the writ petitioner-respondent, the order cannot be interfered with on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice.