IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Shri Prasad Biswas – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tripura - Respondents
W.P(C) No.331 of 2011
Decided On : 16-12-2015
Double Jeopardy - Disciplinary Proceedings - Rule 15(2) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 - The court discussed the memorandum of charge, inquiry report, and orders of penalty imposed on the petitioner. The court found that the petitioner was denied the opportunity to make a representation against the inquiry report, which caused serious prejudice. The court set aside the orders of penalty and remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authority for affording the petitioner the opportunity to make a representation against the inquiry report in accordance with Rule 15(2) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Junior Engineer, challenged the memorandum of charge, inquiry report, and orders of penalty imposed on him. The petitioner was penalized for negligence in duty, unauthorized distribution of RCC pillars, sub-standard execution of work, and certification of bills against claimed supply of bricks. The petitioner denied the charges and asserted that he was unjustly penalized financially without proper inquiry.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was denied the opportunity to make a representation against the inquiry report, which caused serious prejudice. The court set aside the orders of penalty and remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authority for affording the petitioner the opportunity to make a representation against the inquiry report in accordance with Rule 15(2) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965.
Issues: The issues involved the denial of the opportunity to make a representation against the inquiry report, the imposition of penalties without following the provisions of Rule 15(2) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, and the serious prejudice caused to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was denied the opportunity to make a representation against the inquiry report, which was a violation of Rule 15(2) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. The court set aside the orders of penalty and remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authority for affording the petitioner the opportunity to make a representation against the inquiry report.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition partly, setting aside the orders of penalty and remanding the matter back to the disciplinary authority for affording the petitioner the opportunity to make a representation against the inquiry report in accordance with Rule 15(2) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner who has been working as the Junior Engineer, Grade-I has challenged the memorandum of charge under No.F.12(77)/DP/DNE/98/9696-97 dated 14.05.2003, Annexure-3 to the writ petition, the inquiry report dated 31.07.2007 under departmental proceeding case No.923/INQ/DM(N)/2003, Annexure-6 to the writ petition, the order of penalty under No.F.12(77)/DP/DNE/03/8455-56 dated 26.10.2007, Annexure-8 to the writ petition, and the order dated 25.06.2011 passed by the appellate authority, Annexure-14 to the writ petition.
2. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that by the Note.F.15(3)/DND/2001-02/1159 dated 10.05.2002, Annexure- R/1 to the counter affidavit, the petitioner was imposed penalty of recovery of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) in 10 installments. In the said note dated 10.05.2002, it has been observed that:
“..... it is clearly evident that the Government suffered this loss due to negligence of duty by Sri Prasad Biswas. Therefore, it is hereby decided that said Sri Prasad Biswas should compensate for the loss. However, keeping a lenient view seeing past record of Sri Prasad Biswas a penalty of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only is hereby awarded to Sri Prasad Biswas so as to ensure greater care and sincerity in discharging official duties in future.”
The petitioner has asserted that the said amount had been recovered from him. Prior to issuance of the said note, the petitioner was asked to show cause why action should not be taken against him. The petitioner explained that for the defect in the design, the OBB building under reference had collapsed. On consideration of this reply, the said penalty was imposed. Without any reference to the said order of penalty as available in the memorandum dated 11.06.2002, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, the respondent No.3, the District Magistrate & Collector, North Tripura, Kailashahar, now Unokoti District, issued the memorandum dated 14.05.2003 leveling against the petitioner the following charges:
Article-I
“That Shri Prasad Biswas while functioning as Junior Engineer in BDO’s office, Gournagar had unauthorizedly /illegally distributed 260 Nos. of RCC pillars valued Rs.91,598/- among the people of Noorpur G.P. without any permission/authority/ knowledge of the BDO and also without issue of work order. While the BDO, Gournagar directed Shri Biswas to position the said pillars at the manufacturing site, he failed to comply the same. Further when order was issued by the BDO directing Shri Biswas to refund Rs.91,598/- for his aforesaid illegal act, he did not comply the same willfully.
Article-II
That Shri Prasad Biswas while functioning as Junior Engineer in BDO’s office, Gournagar was engaged as Implementing Officer for construction of OBB building at Rangauti under EAS during 2001-2002 vide work order No.6640-62 dated 12.10.01. But owing to sub-standard execution of work due to willful negligence by said Shri Biswas the constructed building had collapsed on 26.04.2002 causing serious loss of invested fund of the Govt. On enquiry the estimated loss was found to be Rs.43,268/-
Article-III
That Shri Prasad Biswas while functioning as Junior Engineer in BDO’s office, Gournagar was engaged as Implementing Officer for construction of a culvert in Tillagaon Gaon Panchayet under RD Scheme during 2000-2001. While executing the work as Implementing Officer he had certified 2 Nos. of bills against claimed supply of 18000 1st class brick in each for payment to M/S Soma Brick Industry, Kumarghat. But subsequently during verification of the works conducted by the Executing Engineer, RD Division, Kumarghat it was found that only 15757 Nos. of 1st class brick and 1476 Nos. of Jhama bricks were utilized in the work. No proof found about consumption of balance bricks of 14767 Nos. costing Rs.37,656/-. Moreover, total value of executed work was found Rs.87,436/- against estimated cost of Rs.1,85,000/-. Cement and cash wages lifted & re
Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad vs. B. Karunakar
State Bank of India v. Shri N. Sundara Money : AIR 1976 SC 1111
Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo etc. v. Union of India and State of Bihar etc.: 1952 SCR 89
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan : 1965 1 SCR 933
In Woman Rao and Ors. etc. etc. v. Union of India and Ors. : AIR 1981 SC 271
Union of India and Ors. v. A.K. Chatterjee : (1993) 2 SCC 191
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.