ASHIS KANTI SAHA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. The pleadings of the parties are also perused.

(2.) THERE is no dispute in respect of the following facts:-That, vide Order No. TKB/2 (200)/80/3933-35, dated 6. 11. 1999, issued by the Executive Officer, Tripura Khadi and Village Industries Board, the petitioner, while serving as an Assistant Organizer (Khadi), was placed under suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding against him, purportedly, in exercise of power conferred by para 13, sub-para 4 (C) of the Tripura Khadi and Village Industries Board Regulations, 1970. In the said suspension order, it is also mentioned to the effect that during the period of suspension, the petitioner will be entitled to half - average pay and other allowances as admissible on the basis of half- average pay. On 15. 11. 1999, the Executive Officer, lodged a written Ejahar to the O. C. , West Agartala P. S. alleging commission of criminal breach of trust by the petitioner and another during 14. 2. 1994 to 13. 10. 1999 in respect of store articles of the value of Rs. 26,46,701. 80 p. entrusted to them by the Board. A case being West Agartala PS Case No. 164 of 1999 under Section 409 IPC was registered and the petitioner was in judicial custody for 45 days in connection with the said case. The petitioner submitted representation to the Executive Officer praying for increasing his subsistence allowances and also for giving the benefit of revised pay-scale. On 01. 02. 2001, the Executive Officer issued a Memorandum being No. TKB/2 (200)/80/2566 to the petitioner stating that his prayer for increasing the rate of subsistence allowance could not be considered as delay in framing the departmental proceeding was directly attributable to him. The contemplated departmental enquiry has not also yet been started.

(3.) UPON hearing the parties through their respective counsel and also on perusal of their pleadings, I have ascertained that one vital issue involved in this case is if the impugned suspension order is legally valid or not. This issue is required to be determined in the light of well settled principles of law.