Back
2014 Supreme(Tri) 296
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
S.C. Das, J.
Dilip Kumar Datta - Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura - Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 242 of 2009 and W.P.(C) No. 164 of 2010
Decided On : 28-07-2014
For the Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:P. Roy Barman and P. Datta, Advocates
For the Respondents/Defendant:T.D. Majumder, Govt. Advocate
Headnote:
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING - MISCONDUCT - INQUIRY - CHANGE OF INQUIRING AUTHORITY - NO CONFIDENCE - RE-EXAMINATION OF WITNESS - ACQUITTAL IN CRIMINAL CASE - PUNISHMENT - JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, a Forester and a Forest Guard, were found guilty of misconduct and punished by the disciplinary authority. They challenged the orders of punishment on the grounds that the change of inquiring authority, no confidence raised against the new inquiring authority, re-examination of a witness, acquittal in a criminal case, and the punishment were illegal and unjustified.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the disciplinary authority had the absolute domain to appoint the inquiring authority, and the change of inquiring authority was not illegal. The court also held that the no confidence raised against the new inquiring authority was vague and rightly rejected by the disciplinary authority. The court further held that the re-examination of a witness was legally permissible and did not cause any miscarriage of justice. The court also held that the acquittal in the criminal case did not preclude the disciplinary authority from taking action against the petitioners. The court also held that the punishment imposed on the petitioners was commensurate with the gravity of the offence and was not shockingly disproportionate.
Issues: 1. Whether the change of inquiring authority was illegal? 2. Whether the no confidence raised against the new inquiring authority was valid? 3. Whether the re-examination of a witness was legally permissible? 4. Whether the acquittal in the criminal case precluded the disciplinary authority from taking action against the petitioners? 5. Whether the punishment imposed on the petitioners was excessive?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The disciplinary authority has the absolute domain to appoint the inquiring authority, and the change of inquiring authority is not illegal unless it is on extraneous considerations. 2. A vague no confidence raised against an inquiring authority can be rightly rejected by the disciplinary authority. 3. The re-examination of a witness is legally permissible if it is in the interests of justice. 4. Acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude the disciplinary authority from taking action against the petitioners if it is otherwise permissible. 5. The punishment imposed on the petitioners must be commensurate with the gravity of the offence and should not be shockingly disproportionate.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT
S.C. Das, J.:--1. The genesis of both the writ petitions is an incident occurred on 03.03.2003 at about 01-30 pm at the Forest Rest House/Office of the Range Officer, Dharmanagar and a common disciplinary proceeding was drawn up against both the writ petitioners named above and another Sri. Amal Laskar (Mali-cum-Watcher) by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Tripura vide Memo No. F.19(569)-VIG/FOR-2003/18,954-58 dated 18.10.2003 and an inquiry under Section 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules was directed for major punishment. In the inquiry both the petitioners and Sri. Amal Laskar were found guilty and accordingly, the disciplinary authority inflicted punishment against both the writ petitioners by separate orders and challenging those orders the present writ petitions are filed by Shri Dilip Datta, Forester, the petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 242 of 2009 and Sri. Makhan Lal Dey, Forest Guard, the petitioner of W.P. (C) No. 164 of 2010.
2. Both the writ petitions were heard analogously on the prayer of the learned counsel of both side since common questions of law are involved and this common judgment shall govern both the cases.
3. Since both the writ petitions are identical, W.P.(C) No. 242 of 2009 is taken up as lead case for reference in the judgment.
4. Heard learned counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman for the petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 242 of 2009 and learned counsel, Mr. P. Datta for the petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 164 of 2010. Heard also learned Government Advocate, Mr. T.D. Majumder for the respondents in both the cases.
5. Fact of the case:
Bereft of unnecessary details, the short fact, leading to the common disciplinary proceeding against the petitioners, is that, on 03.03.2003 at about 01-30 pm Sri. Sailendra Singh, an Indian Forest Service Officer, working as Divisional Forest Officer (‘DFO’ for short), Kanchanpur, visited Forest Range Office/Forest Rest House at Dharmanagar along with staff of Divisional Forest Protection Party (for short ‘DFPP’), Kanchanpur. The Range Officer of Dharmanagar Forest Range Office was away from his Office. When Sri. Singh reached the Forest Rest House, suddenly Sri. Dilip Datta, Forester appeared in the Rest House and came in front of Sri. Singh in a challenging mood using abusive language with filthy words and suddenly caught left hand of Sri. Singh in his fist and started dragging Sri. Singh towards the room of the Rest House. Sri. Singh tried to restrain Sri. Datta, but Sri. Datta was beyond control. It was found that Sri. Datta was fully intoxicated and when he could not resist Sri. Datta he called the DFPP staff and the staff of DFPP soon appeared and separated Sri. Singh from the hold of Sri. Datta.
Being a superior officer of the department, Sri. Singh felt extremely humiliated because of the unruly behaviour of Sri. Datta while on duty and he at once went to the Chamber of the Range Officer for making a phone call to the Conservator of Forests, Northern Circle, Kumarghat and when he was trying to make the phone call, Sri. Datta again entered into the Chamber of the Range Officer in a charging mood and offensively asked Sri. Singh to put down the phone, but Sri. Singh ignoring the words of Sri. Datta while was trying to make the phone call, Sri. Datta grabbed the phone from the hand of Sri. Singh and at that time Sri. Makhan Lal Dey, Forest Guard and Sri. Amal Laskar, Mali-cum-watcher of the Range Office also arrived there and made attempt to physically assault Sri. Singh and pushed him from behind. At that juncture DFPP staff of Kanchanpur appeared there and managed to rescue Sri. Singh from further assault and humiliation and took him to the vehicle, wherefrom Sri. Singh directly went to Dharmanagar Police Station and lodged an FIR with the O/C of Dharmanagar P.S. about the incident. A police case was registered against both the petitioners and other delinquent, Sri. Amal Laskar and after investigation the police case was charge sheeted against the accused persons.
A disciplinary proceedin
