Back
2018 Supreme(Tri) 19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
T. VAIPHEI, S.TALAPATRA, JJ.
Sri Narendra Debbarma, son of Khilingrai Debbarma - Appellant
Vs
The State of Tripura - Respondents
WA 22 OF 2017
Decided on : 08-01-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, Sr. Advocate Mr. R. Dutta, Mr. S. Deb & Ms. A. Banik, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. S. Deb, Sr. Advocate. Mr. S. Chakraborty, Addl. G.A.
The irregularity in the delegation of authority for inquiry did not fundamentally lack jurisdiction and did not affect the outcome of the inquiry.
Headnote:
Misconduct - Post-Retirement Disciplinary Proceeding - Rule 9 of CCS(Pension) Rules - 9
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Forester, faced a post-retirement disciplinary proceeding for alleged misconduct during his service. The inquiry was conducted by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Tripura, and the petitioner was found guilty of the charges. The petitioner challenged the final order of penalty, arguing that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests had no authority to delegate the power of inquiry to another officer.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that while the delegation of authority for inquiry to another officer was irregular, it did not fundamentally lack jurisdiction. The petitioner did not raise any objection to the delegation throughout the proceeding, and there was no objection from the Governor. The court found no gross violation of natural justice or prejudice suffered by the petitioner. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
Issues: Delegation of authority for inquiry, violation of natural justice, irregularity in the disciplinary proceeding
Ratio Decidendi: While the delegation of authority for inquiry was irregular, it did not fundamentally lack jurisdiction. The court can only interfere in a domestic inquiry if there is a gross violation of natural justice and the petitioner has suffered prejudice. The irregularity in the delegation did not affect the outcome of the inquiry.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and there was no order as to cost.
S. Talapatra, J.
By this intra-court appeal, the judgment and order dated 10.01.2017 delivered in WP(C) No.15 of 2011 by a learned Single Judge of this Court has been challenged.
2. The appellant [hereinafter referred to as the petitioner] retired from his service on superannuation on 31.08.2007 from the post of Forester. A post-retirement disciplinary proceeding was drawn against him by the Memorandum under No. F.19(686)-Vig/For-07/9551-54 dated 25.07.09 [Annexure 6 to the writ petition] under Rule 9 of the CCS(Pension) Rules as adopted by the Govt. of Tripura and having sanction of the Governor on the following articles of charge.
?Article-I
That the said Sri Narendra Debbarma, Forester (now Retd.) while functioning as Beat Officer, Dyke-IV under Tirthamukh Range under Gumti Forest Division, Jatanbari wilfully neglected his duty by not doing the Government works properly as assigned to him in accordance with the norms/orders of Forest Department and general financial rule thus, acted in manner most unbecoming of a Govt. Servant and to the severe detriment to Govt. interest by misappropriation and defalcation of govt. money to the tune of Rs.3,72,375/-.
Thus Sri Narendra Debbarma, Forester (now Retd) is charged for lack of integrity and serious misconduct.
Article-II
That the said Sri Narendra Debbarma, Forester (now Retd.) while functioning as Beat Officer, Dyke-IV under Tirthamukh Range under Gumti Forest Division, Jatanbari, wilfully neglected his duties, and did not carry out plantation and forestry related works as entrusted to him as per specifications and norms. Sri Narendra Debbarma, Fr. (now Retd) acted in a manner most unbecoming of a Government servant and to the severe detriment to Government interest.
Thus Sri Narendra Debbarma, Forester (now Retd), is charged for lack of devotion to Govt. duties and for serious negligence.”
3. The petitioner disputed the charge by filing the written statement of defence dated 27.09.2009 [Annexure 7 to the writ petition]. Even though by the memorandum dated 25.07.2009, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests [in short, the PCCF] was asked to enquire but the PCCF caused the said enquiry into the said articles of charge through one Mr. G.R. Pal, IFS, Conservator of Forests, South Circle, Udaipur [the Respondent No.4 and 6] vide the order No. F.19 (686)/Vig/For-2007/16821-27 dated 14.10.2009 [Annexure 8 to the writ petition]. The petitioner at one phase of enquiry expressed his no confidence on the said Enquiry Officer, but said no confidence was not acted upon and the inquiry proceeding was carried out as the petitioner had acquiesced to the later phase of the proceeding.
4. There is no dispute that the petitioner participated in the later phase of the inquiry and the Inquiry Officer submitted his written brief of defence under Rule 14(9) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 in the said inquiry being Departmental Proceeding No. 01/INQ/For-09. In the written brief of defence submitted in the final phase of the inquiry, the petitioner has categorically stated that the Presenting Officer has failed to establish the charge by laying adequate evidence. In the said written brief of defence [Annexure-13 to the writ petition], the petitioner made the following submission:
(a) The Inquiry Officer did not allow production of relevant additional documents despite repeated insistence made by the petitioner. According to the petitioner in his prayer dated 23.11.2009 he prayed for production of additional documents. Out of those documents, the documents at Sl. No.4 and 14 were very relevant for revealing the truth viz-a-viz the Articles of charge but one of those documents was withheld.
(b) Non-appreciation of the materials placed in the evidence has vitiated the proceeding. According to the petitioner, Exbt.D-6 would reveal the truth as the said documents show that the charge was drawn against the petitioner for defalcating a sum of Rs.1,86,750/- for Nooncherra Plantation works. The said Forest Ra
