PRASANTA PAUL CHOUDHURY Vs. TRIPURA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders dated 11.8.93 and 1.6.8.93 of the disciplinary authority in a disciplinary proceeding initiated against him under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, (for short "CCS (CCA)Rules 1965").

(2.) The facts briefly are that the petitioner is a Grade-IV employee working under the Tripura Public Service Commission, On 2.5.89 he was placed under suspension and a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him by Memorandum dated 2.5.89 of the Secretary to the Tripura Public Service Commission, the disciplinary authority. As per the said Memorandum dated 2.5.89( the first article of charge against the petitioner was that he took an advance of Rs 2,500/- on 24.7.84 towards LTC, but did not initially submit a bill for adjustment of the said advance on completion of journeys and submitted a bill only after a lapse of one year which was unbecoming of a government servant. The second article of charge against the petitioner was that in the final LTC bill he claimed to have performed journey from Dhairmanagar to Delhi on 2.8.84 by purchasing railway ticket Nos 04502,04503 and 04504 and from Delhi to Dharmanagar by purchasing railway ticket Nos 34251,34252 and 34253,but on reference to railway authorities at Dharmanagar, Delhi and New Delhi it was found that no such tickets were actually issued by them. Hence the LTC bill submitted by the petitioner was bogus and false and he had misappropriated government money amounting to Rs 2,500/-. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence on 16.5.89 wherein he has denied the aforesaid charges. Thereafter., Shri N K Sinha of the Judicial Service of Trripura was appointed as Inquiring Authority by the disciplinary authority. He enquired into the matter and submitted his enquiry report dated 1.4.91 holding that the disciplinary authority had failed to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority, however, disagreed with the said finding of the inquiring authority and wrote a letter dated 29.4.91 to the Inquiring Authority requesting him to hold further enquiry into the matter and submit a report to him. When the Inquiring Authority did not hold the further enquiry, the disciplinary authority passed a detailed order dated 31.7.91 holding that the two articles of charges had been fully established against the petitioner. In the said order dated 31.7.91, the disciplinary authority proposed to impose on the petitioner the penalty of recovery of the advance made to the petitioner for the LTC with penal interest and the penalty of reduction to two lower stages of time scale of pay for a period of two years. By the said order dated 31.7.91, the disciplinary authority also proposed to pass an order that no further amount will be paid to the petitioner during the period of suspension and gave an opportunity to the petitioner to make a representation against the aforesaid penalty proposed by him. Aggrieved by the said order dated 31.7.91, the petitioner moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in Civil Rule No 238/9land the said Civil Rule was disposed of by order dated 7.7. 93 by this court with the direction to the respondents not to implement the proposed punishment until the representation submitted by the petitioner against the proposed punishment was disposed of in accordance with law. Thereafter the impugned order dated 11.8.93 was passed by the disciplinary authority in exercise of powers conferred on him under Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 directing that the pay of the petitioner be reduced by two stages from Rs 1160/- and Rs 1110/- in the time scale of pay for the period of one year with effect from 1.9.93 and further directed recovery of the amount of Rs 2,500/- drawn by the petitioner less the amount already realised from him together with penal interest. This was followed by an order dated 16.8.93 of the disciplinary authority to the effect that the petitioner would not be entitled to any further payment other than subsistence allowance already drawn by him during the period spent under suspension from 2.5.89 to 31.7.91 as the disciplinary proceedings had culminated in award of punishment. Aggrieved by the said orders dated 11.8.93 and 16.8.93, the petitioner has moved this court in the present writ petition for appropriate reliefs.

(3.) Mr. A.Chakravorty, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is an illiterate person and does not understand the technicalities of Rules and procedure and that he had in fact undergone the journey from Dharmanagar to Delhi and back and submitted a final LTC bill for Rs 835.90 and after adjustment of the said amount the unspent balance of Rs 1664.10 had been recovered from the salary of the petitioner by six equal monthly instalments of Rs 277.36. Mr. Charkravorty further contended that the disciplinary authority appears to have recorded the findings of guilt against the petitioner on the basis of letters received from the railway authorities which were marked as Exts-P-l,P-6 and P-7 in the enquiry but the persons who had written those letters had not been produced as witnesses and as a result the petitioner could not cross-examine those persons with regard to the veracity of the contents of the letters. He further submitted that even the final LTC bill in which the ticket Nos were mentioned by the petitioner was not produced in the enquiry. It is for these reasons that the Inquiring Authority had come to a finding [that the charges levelled against the petitioner had not been established. But the disciplinary authority has totally ignored the said finding of the Inquiring Authority and recorded his own finding against the petitioner relying on Exts-P-1, P-6 and P-7 in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Mr. Chakravorty finally submitted that a clear direction was given by this court in its order dated 7,.7.93 in Civil Rule No 238/91 not to implement the proposed punishment against the petitioner without first disposing of the representation submitted by the petitioner and yet the disciplinary authority implemented the proposed punishment in the impugned order dated 11.8.93 without considering the representation of the petitioner.