Back
2014 Supreme(Tri) 70
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
Deepak Gupta, S.C. Das, JJ.
Swapan Kr. Chakraborty - Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura - Respondent
WP(C) 246 of 2006
Decided On : 12-02-2014
For the Appellant :Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate and Mr. B. Banerji, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. G.S. Bhattacharji, Advocate
Principle of natural justice requires providing the inquiry report to the official before imposing a penalty and considering the contentions raised by the official.
Headnote:
Home Guards - Disciplinary Action - Not specified
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's name was struck off from the roll of the Home Guards due to allegations of unauthorized leave and engaging in political activities during sick leave.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the impugned order as the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to present his version and ordered the respondents to provide the inquiry report and witness statements to the petitioner for a fair opportunity to respond.
Issues: Allegations of unauthorized leave and engaging in political activities during sick leave, lack of opportunity for the petitioner to present his version.
Ratio Decidendi: Principle of natural justice requires that an official must know the contents of the inquiry report before a penalty is imposed, and the officer passing the order must consider the contentions raised by the petitioner.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the respondents were directed to provide the inquiry report and witness statements to the petitioner for a fair opportunity to respond.
JUDGMENT
Deepak Gupta; C.J.:-By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the Order dated 19-12-2005 whereby his name was struck off from the roll of the Home Guards.
2. We are not going into the other contentious issues raised, but in the year 2005 an inquiry was conducted against the petitioner and in the inquiry, the charge was that though the petitioner was on medical leave from 04-03-2004 to 04-04-2004, he during this period had left the State of Tripura and had gone to places outside Tripura and indulged in activities unbecoming a Home Guard.
3. On 20-06-2005, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner which reads as follows:-
Government of Tripura
Office of the Commandant Home Guards
Tripura: Agartala
No. 9309-12/P/Folder/HG/RSV/05
Dated, the 20 June' 05
To
HG No. 761030
Swapan Chakraborty
Notice
Whereas it is alleged that on 04.03.04 you submitted a sick report in a plain paper addressed to OC West Agartala PS, but you did not produce any medical certificate of any recognized Medical Officer.
and
Whereas during aforesaid sick report you left the station unauthorizedly and went to Hyderabad with some political motive.
and
Whereas during aforesaid unauthorized leave of station you have performed journey from Agartala to Guwahati by private transport and thereafter from Guwahati to Hyderabad by train and the return journey was conducted from Vishakha Pattanam to Guwahati by train, thereafter from Guwahati to Agartala by bus. The entire journey performed by you was totally without prior permission of your authority.
and
Whereas, after your return from Hyderabad in the first week of March, 2004 you took up some political programmes including campaign, secret meeting, postering, wall writing and distribution of leaflets etc. in favour of proposed disobedience movement scheduled on 07.04.04 which was totally a gross misconduct on your part being a member of Home Guards Organization.
and
Whereas, you showed a total gross misconduct and indulged yourself in illegal activities, created provocation, mislead the members of Home Guards as well as your controlling authority in very unbecoming manners.
Under the above you are hereby asked to explain your position on the above lapses as to why disciplinary action will not be taken against you. Your reply should reach to the undersigned within 15 days on receipt of the same, failing which exparte decision/action will be taken against you.
Sd/- (20.06.05)
(K.R. Deb Barma)
Commandant
Home Guards Organisation.
4. From the notice which was issued to the petitioner, it is obvious that the allegation against him on which the inquiry was to be conducted and on the basis of which explanation was called was only that during the period he was on sick leave, he had left the station unauthorizedly and had gone to Hyderabad with some political motive. It was also alleged that in March, 2004 he had taken up some political programmes including campaigning, secret meeting, postering, wall writing and distribution of leaflets. Thus, these were the two charges against the petitioner.
5. The petitioner replied to the notice on 05-07-2005 and stated that he had never left the State of Tripura. According to him, he was ill and he had not done any of the activities which were alleged in the notice. It appears that an inquiry was conducted, but neither the proceedings of the inquiry nor the inquiry report have been placed before us. What has been placed before us is an Office Order dated 21-11-2005 passed on the basis of such inquiry report wherein a provisional decision was taken to remove the name of the petitioner from the Home Guards Organization and he was called upon to submit his reply. In this order, reference has been made to certain evidence recorded in the inquiry.
6. We have carefully gone through this order, but it does not show that the copy of the inquiry report was ever supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the provisional order proposing the striking off his name. He raised a number of
