MAHENDRA KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is working as a Forest Ranger under the Government of Tripura and in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority in a disciplinary proceeding.

(2.) The relevant facts are that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Tripura initiated a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner by Memorandum dated 2.8.89 under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, (for short," CCS (CCA) Rules"). The charge against the petitioner as per Articles of Charge annexed to the said Memorandum was that during the period he was working as Forest Ranger at Nidaya Range he acted malafide in connivance with the permit holder by allowing extraction and transportation of trees from the Reserved Forest in the name of Jote land for his wrongful personal gain causing loss to the Government and he was thus guilty of misconduct and lack of integrity to the detriment of the Government interest. Along with the Articles of Charge a Statement of imputations of misconduct in support of the Articles of Charge was also furnished to the petitioner. In the said statement of imputations, facts and materials in support of the charge were detailed and on the basis of the said facts and materials the following charge of misconduct and imputations in support of such misconduct were stated:

(3.) Title petitioner however denied the aforesaid charge and imputations in his letter dated 25i8.89 to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Tripura. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted by an Inquiring officer and the said enquiry several documents were exhibited and as many as five P.W's were examined and cross-examined. On the basis of the said evidence adduced during the enquiry, the Inquiring Officer submitted a report holding that the charge against the petitioner had been proved. The principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Tripura agreed with the said findings of the Inquiring Officer and as the Disciplinary Authority proposed to reduce the pay of the petitioner to the lowest stage in his time scale of pay for a period of five years, he by order dated 8.11.90 called upon the petitioner to submit his representation against the proposed penalty. The petitioner submitted his representation dated 11.12.90. But the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests by his order dated 24.6.91 held that as per the findings of the inquiring Officer the charge against the petitioner had been proved and that the petitioner should have been repentant for the irregularities and lapses committed by him and for resorting to corrupt practices, and expecting that the petitioner would not indulge in any irregular or corrupt practices in future, he reduced the reduction of pay of the petitioner to the lowest stage in the time scale of pay for a period of three years and further directed that the petitioner would not earn any increment of pay during the period of reduction and that on the expiry of the period the reduction would not have the effect of postponing of future increment of pay. Aggrieved by the said order of penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority; the petitioner submitted an appeal dated 22.7.91 before the Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Forest Department. Secretary, Government of Tripura by his order dated 9.4.92 with the observations that there was no reason to interfere with the order of the Disciplinary Authority and that the penalty awarded could not be said to be excessive considering the gravity of the misconduct. The petitioner has moved this court under Art.226 of the Constitution for appropriate relief against the aforesaid order dated 24.6.91 of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Tripura and the order of the Chief Secretary, Government of Tripura dated 9.4.92.