ACHINTA DUTTA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ appeal, the appellant, has challenged the judgment and order dated 30.11.95 of the learned Single Judge passed in CR No. 166/89.

(2.) The facts briefly are that the appellant while working as a Forester under the Government of Tripura received a letter dated 16.8.79 from the Conservator of Forest, Southern Circle, calling for his explanation with regard to misappropriation of government property, gross irregularity and negligence in discharging official duties with dishonest motive. The appellant furnished his explanation dated 30.8.79 to the Conservator of Forest, Southern Circle, but the explanation was not accepted and by memo dated 5.6.80, the Chief Conservator of Forest, Tripura, initiated disciplinary proceedings against the appellant under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 which are applicable to government servants in the State of Tripura. The charge against the appellant was that while functioning as Patrol Officer, Harinadhepa, he misappropriated government property and failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to government duty by sawing seized Karai timber without permission and payment of royalty for his personal gain to the detriment of government interest. An inquiry was conducted into the said charge by the Inquiring Authority and in the said inquiry 17 witnesses were examined on behalf of the department and one witness was examined by the appellant. Several documents were also exhibited by the parties. The Inquiring Authority submitted his report on 1.6.84 holding the appellant guilty of the charge. The Chief Conservator of Forest, Tripura in his order dated 12.11.84 agreed with the said finding of the Inquiring Authority and proposed a penalty of reduction of pay of the appellant to the lowest stage in the time scale of pay for a period of 2 years and called upon the appellant to submit his representation against the said proposed penalty. The appellant submitted his representation dated 8.5.85 against the proposed penalty, but by order dated 9.7.85, the Chief Conservator pf Forest, Tripura, acting as the disciplinary authority confirmed the said penalty against the appellant. The appellant then preferred an appeal against the said order of penalty before the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Tripura. The Chief Secretary while holding that the charge against the appellant had been proved reduced the penalty to a period of one year reduction of pay of the appellant in the lowest stage in the time scale of pay by his order dated 11.12.86. Subsequently, by order dated 30.8.88, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest directed that since the charge levelled against the appellant had ended in penalty, he will not get any other pay and allowances except what he has drawn as subsistence allowance and that the period of suspension of the appellant with effect from 5.9.79 to 25.11.88 will be counted towards superannuation and gratuity and for no other purpose. Thereafter, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest passed an order dated 29.10.88 to the effect that the appellant will not be allowed to cross efficiency bar. Aggrieved, the appellant filed CR No. 166/89 before the Agartala Bench of this Court with a prayer to quash the order of penalty passed by the Chief Conservator, the appellate order of the Chief Secretary, the order of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, directing that the appellant will not be allowed any pay and allowances other than subsistence allowance during the period of suspension and the order of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest directing that the appellant will not be allowed to cross efficiency bar. By the impugned judgment and order dated 30.11.95 in the said CR No. 166/89, the learned Single Judge quashed the order dated 29.10.88 of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest directing that the appellant will not be allowed to cross the efficiency bar but did not interfere with the other orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority.

(3.) At the! hearing of this appeal.'Mr. A.M. Lodh, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that by a petition dated 27.6.81 filed before the Inquiring Authority, the appellant had required some documents in support of his defence, but the said documents were not called for by the Inquiring Authority. As a result, reasonable opportunity was not afforded to the appellant to defend himself against the charge during the iinquiry. Mr. P. Devroy, learned counsel for tike respondents, on the other hand, contended that all opportunities were given to the appellant to defend himself during the inquiry and this would be evident from the records produced before'the Court.