SAMARENDRA BHOWMIK Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and decree dated 8.5.1987 and 18.5.1987 respectively passed by the learned subordinate Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, in case No. 29 M.S of 1986/10 M.S of 1980 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, appellant herein, is the subject matter under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) The facts of the case in a very short compass are as follows:- The plaintiff, appellant herein, filed a suit being Money Suit No. 10 of 1980 which was subsequently renumbered as Money Suit No. 29 of 1986 for compensation as against the defendents/respondents herein to the tune of Rs. 77,000/- on six heads which constituted damage and compensation. According to the plaintiff, he was initially appointed as LDClerk in the office of the Land Acquisition Collector, West Tripura, Agartala. In the year 1960 he was posted as Receptionist of Circuit House, Agartala. During his service as Receptionist he refused to indulge in mal-practices and corruption and as such the defendent No. 3 who was in charge of the Circuit House at the relevant time, became annoyed with the plaintiff and transferred him to Dharmanagar, but no release order was issued. He was also not allowed to sign the attendence register, though he was attending his duties at the Circuit House at the relevant time, and, moreover, his salary for the month of September, 1969 was withheld and accordingly, he filed a suit for recovery of his salary in the Court of Munsiff and the suit was decreed in his favour and thus the decretal amount was paid to the plaintiff but again, he was not allowed to join his duties and no salary was paid for the period from the date of filing of the suit in the Court of learned Munsiflf till the decree was passed inspite of repeated requests, but, ultimately he was paid his salary upto 21.11.72 in the month of April, 1973. Thereafter he was again transferred to Sonamura by the District Magistrate and Collector, West Tripura, Agartala, and further he was not again paid his salary for the period from May, 1970 to 16th November 1972. It is also the case of the plaintiff that due to non- payment of salary, advance T.A and advance pay he could not join his new place of posting at Sonamura and more over, he was indebted in the local market and his creditors were not ready to allow the plaintiff to leave Agartala without getting their dues. The plaintiff further issued notice u/s 80 C.P.C for his arrear salaries and thereafter, he filed a suit in the Court of Subordinate Judge. In the meantime, two separate disciplinary proceedings were drawn against him by the District Magistrate and Collector illegally and maliciously,but later on those proceedings were rescinded and dropped on 21.4.1976, and as a result of which the plaintiff was allowed to resume his duties on the same date in the Office of the District Magistrate and Collector and later on, the plaintiff was paid his arrear salaries on 6.5.1977. According to the plaintiff/appellant the defendents committed gross mischief and their illegal action has lowered his reputation in the estimation of his friends, collages, neighbours and relatives and moreover, his family members and himself had suffered from serious mental agony and pecuniary distress, and, as a result of non-payment of salaries and illegal proceedings, the plaintiff could not get married in due time. Contending all these facts mentioned above, the plaintiff filed the suit for compensation to the tune of Rs.77,000/-. Suit was contested by the defendents by filing written statement, contending interlia, that metre was no post of Receptionist in the Circuit House, Agartala at the relevant time, the plaintiff was L.D Clerk and he was functioning as Receptionist and he never bought to the notice of the Superior Authority about any corrupt practice as contended by him. He was transferred to the Office of the Sub-Diviisional Officer, Dharmanagar on 2.9.69 by the District Magistrate and Collector, Tripura in the interest of public service and as such there is no question of abuse or misuse of power on the part of the District Magistrate . After his transfer, the plaintiff was released on 16.9.69 (A.N) under a specific order issued by the District Magistrate and Collector, Tripura, so as to enable him to join his new place of posting. The plaintiff was not entitled to get his pay etc. beyond 16.9.69 from the office of the District Magistrate and Collector, Tripura, Agartala, and his pay upto 16.9.69 was duly drawn and offered to him, but, he refused to receive the same . The pay and allowances of the plaintiff for the period from 17.9.69 onwards were payable by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Dharmanagar, who is the drawing and disbursing officer after the transfer and release of the plaintiff. It is also the case of the defendents that the plaintiff refused to accept his release order and did not join his place of posting and he purposely and deliberately refrained from joining his newplace of positing by disregarding the orders of the superior authorities and he continued to stay at Agartala unauthorisedly. Apart from its the plaintiff published a letter in his own hand in the local news paper namely "Dainik Gana Abhijan" dated 1.10.69 criticising the lawful action of the competant authority without obtaining prior permission from the prescribed authority, thereby violating the provisions of Sub Rule 2 of Rule 8 of Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules 1964, and, accordingly disciplinary proceedings was drawn up against the plaintiff for his mis-conduct. The plaintiff did not receive the payment of advance pay. T.A etc. despite the same had been released. During the pendency of the said suit filed by the plaintiff in the Court of the Subordinate Judge for his arrear salary, the plaintiff approached the disciplinary authority on several times and he expressed verbally his repentence for violation of the rules and repeatedly requested the disciplinary authority to review the proceedings sympathetically with a view to exonerate the plaintiff from the charges and allow him to join his duties in Agartala instead of Sonamura so that he could look after his ailing mother. Accordingly the proceedings were reviewed and examined sympathetically arid the same was dropped and later on he was allowed to resume his duties at Agartala. There is no laches or negligence on the part of the defendants for which the plaintiff was prevented from his marriage. Drawing up a disciplinary proceedings against the plaintiff does not lower the prestige and the dignity of the plaintiff and the members of the family.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings of the charges, the learned trial Court framed as many as 10 issues for just determination of the real points of controversy between the parties and those issues are quoted below:-