NANDAN DEY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was a Rifleman under the 5th Bn. Tripura State Rifles by the present petition has challenged the order of his dismissal from service dated 7. 3. 2007. The petitioner, while serving as such, was served with a Charge Memo dated 8. 11. 2006 issued by the Commandant, 2nd Bn. Tripura State Rifles, the disciplinary authority, under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), levelling the charge of gross misconduct committed by him by allegedly submitting a false Class-VIII Pass Certificate from East Durjoy Nagar High School, Sadar at the time of his appointment as Rifleman on 4. 1. 99 in Tripura State Rifles. Along with the charge memo, the list of documents to be relied upon and the list of witnesses to be examined by the disciplinary authority in support of the charge have also been furnished. The petitioner, on receipt of the charge memo, submitted his reply on 19. 11. 06 denying the charge levelled against him and praying for exonerating him from such charge. The disciplinary authority being not satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner decided to hold a departmental proceeding against him into the said charge and, accordingly, the Assistant Commandant has been appointed as enquiry officer, who conducted the departmental proceeding. On completion of such proceeding, the enquiry officer has submitted his report. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority vide communication dated 31. 1. 2007 informed the petitioner about the proposed penalty of his dismissal from service, asking him to make representation against such proposed penalty. The petitioner submitted his reply on 25. 2. 2007, basically contending that the enquiry was conducted in violation of the provisions of the Rules; that he has not been given the defence assistance thereby depriving him to effectively defend himself in the proceeding; that he has not been furnished with the copies of the deposition of the witnesses, the copies of the documents relied upon by the Department in the enquiry proceeding and the report of the enquiry officer dated 29. 1. 07, on the basis of which the disciplinary authority has provisionally taken the decision for dismissing him from service. The disciplinary authority thereafter vide order dated 7. 3. 2007 dismissed the petitioner from service, which has been challenged in the present writ petition.

(2.) I have heard Mr. A. K. Bhowmick, learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. C. Nath, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) MR . Nath, learned State Counsel, referring to the averments in the affidavits-in-opposition filed, has submitted that the contention of the petitioner that he has been denied with the reasonable opportunity of defending himself in the proceeding conducted against him is not at all correct as he was informed about his right of taking the defence assistance and in fact the petitioner has declined to have any defence assistance. It has further been submitted that the department has examined the witnesses in presence of the delinquent which witnesses, however, have not been cross-examined by the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the copies of the documents, which were relied upon in enquiry have also been furnished. According to Mr. Nath, there is absolutely no violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the enquiry by the enquiry officer against the petitioner. Mr. Nath, however, fairly submits that in none of the affidavits-in-opposition filed on behalf of respondents, there is denial relating to the contention of the petitioner about non-furnishing of the enquiry report. Mr. Nath has failed to draw the attention of the Court to any document reflecting that the copy of the enquiry report has been furnished to the petitioner.