JAILAL SAITHAL Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as Forest Ranger in the Forest Department of the Government of Tripura. By a memorandum dated 18.11.91 issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Tripura, an inquiry was proposed to be held against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Conduct and Appeal) Rules, 1965, in respect of six articles of charge misconduct. By the said memorandum, the petitioner was asked to submit his written statement in defence. Thereafter, an inquiry was held and the Inquiring Authority submitted his report on 15.11.95 finding the petitioner guilty of four charges out of six articles of charge. The disciplinary authority, namely the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Tripura, furnished a copy of the findings of the Inquiring Authority to the petitioner and called upon him to submit a representation against the proposed penalty of dismissal from service by his order dated 30.7.97. The petitioner then submitted his representation dated 12.12.97 against the proposed penalty and after considering the said representation of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 22.1.98 to the effect that the petitioner shall be compulsorily retired from service with effect 31.1.98 and the mis-appropriated amount of Rs. 1,46,780.60 would be recovered from the petitioner as per rules. Against the said order of penalty, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Rules 23 and 24 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Conduct and Appeal) Rules, 1965, before the Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Govt of Tripura. But the said appeal was rejected by the aforesaid appellate authority. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present application under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of penalty dated 22.1.98 passed by the disciplinary authority and the order rejecting the appeal passed by the appellate authority.

(2.) Mr A. Roy Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Inquiring Authority and the disciplinary authority have relied on the statements of some of the beneficiaries of Social Forestry Scheme undertaken by the petitioner as Forest Ranger for recording the findings of mis-appropriation against the petitioner. He explained that the statements of different beneficiaries were collected during the preliminary inquiry but these beneficiaries were not produced at the time of inquiry before the Inquiry Authority. As a result, the petitioner did not get an opportunity to cross-examine the said beneficiaries. He relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Prasanta Paul Choudhury-Vs-Tripura Public Service Commission, 1999(1) GLT 162, in which this Court following the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Mysore-Vs-Shivabasappa Shivappa Makapur, AIR 1963 SC 375 and State of UP-Vs-Om Prakash Gupta, AIR 1970 SC 679, held that the statements of witnesses collected in course of a preliminary inquiry prior to the disciplinary proceedings can be utilised in the disciplinary proceedings if the person against whom the inquiry is being conducted has been given an opportunity to cross-examine the said witnesses in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Mr Roy Barman vehemently argued that the principles of natural justice has been violated in the present case and, therefore, the findings of the Inquiring Authority and the disciplinary authority that the petitioner was guilty of changes stood vitiated and are liable to be quashed. He further argued that a reading of the inquiry report would reveal that the Inquiring Authority had recorded his findings against the petitioner in a mechanical way without applying his mind to the materials available before him.

(3.) Mr S. Roy, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, produced the records of the inquiry and submitted that the statements of the beneficiaries were recorded in the preliminary inquiry in presence of the petitioner and the petitioner has also signed the said statements. He also contended that the petitioner hass also admitted his guilt before the department and has requested the authorities to give him sometime to make payment of the misappropriated amount in instalments. He argued that tine petitioner had not at any stage of inquiry made a demand before the Inquiring Authority that the beneficiaries of Social Forestry Scheme should be produced before the Inquiring Authority for cross-examination. On these facts, according to Mr Roy, principles of natural justice have not been violated and the findings of the Inquiring Authority and the disciplinary authority cannot be held to be vitiated.