Acquittal by a Criminal Court does not absolve the accused from facing departmental proceedings, and the appellate authority must provide reasons in its order in accordance with Rule 27 of the CCS & CCA Rules, 1965.

A. Lodh, J.

Since common questions of fact & law are involved in both the writ appeals, with consent of the parties, these are decided by the present order.

2. By means of these intra-court appeals, the appellants have challenged the legality of the judgment and order dated 28.07.2014, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 242 of 2009 and WP(C) 164 of 2010 wherein and whereunder the learned Single Judge did not find any merit to interfere with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority with affirmation by the Appellate Authority imposing penalty of reduction of pay scale to the lowest stage to Rs.4200/-, in the time scale of pay Rs.4200-120-6000-130-7300-150-8650/- in respect of writ appellant, Sri Dilip Kumar Datta; and Rs.3,200/-, in the time scale of pay Rs.3200-90-4280-100-5480-110-6030/- in respect of writ appellant, Sri Makhan Lal Dey with cumulative effect till the appellants could be found fit by the disciplinary authority to be allowed to earn increment from that stage.

3. A common disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant Sri Dilip Kumar Datta, a Forester under the department of Forest and other two persons namely Makhan Lal Dey (appellant of WA No.63/2014), Forest Guard and Amal Laskar, Mali-cum-Watcher under Rule 14 of the CCS & CCA Rules,1965. The article of charges against the appellant-delinquents and Sri Amal Laskar were framed which are reproduced below:

“Statement of Articles of charge framed against Sh. Dilip Dutta, Forester, Sh. Makhan Lal Dey, FG and Sh. Amal Laskar, MCW of the Forest Department, Govt. of Tripura.

Article : I

That Sh. Dilip Dutta, Forester while functioning as Range Assistant, Dharmanagar was found unable to take care of himself under influence of intoxicating drink & appeared at the place of his employment in a state of intoxication during the course of his duty on 03/03/2003. Such behavior on the part of a Government employee is most unbecoming involving violation of Rule 3(1)(iii), 22(b) & (d) of the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988.

Article: II

That while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Sh. Dutta, Forester during the course of his duty on 03/03/2003 behaved in a most disorderly manner by using abusive language at a senior Officer of the Department namely Sh. Sailendra Singh, IFS, DFO Kanchanpur at the Forest Rest House, Dharmanagar and even attempted physical assault on him. Such disorderly behavior on the part of a Government employee amounts to violation of Rule 3(1) (ii) & (iii) of the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988.

Article: III

That while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Sh. Dutta, Forester during the course of his duty on 03/03/2003 disturbed peace at the place of his employment under influence of intoxicating drinks and behaved rudely once again with Sh. Sailendra Singh, IFS, DFO, Kanchanpur in the Range Officer’s Chamber and even prevented him from making phone calls. Such behavior on the part of a Government employee is most unbecoming involving gross violation of Rule 3(1)(ii) & (iii) and 22(b) of the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988.

Article : IV

That Sh. Makhan Lal Dey, FG and Sh. Amal Laskar, MCW while functioning under Dharmanagar Range acted in most unbecoming manner by resorting to disorderly behavior, subversive of discipline, during the course of their duty on 03/03/2003 by joining hands & abetting others to cause physical as well as mental assault on Sh. Sailendra Singh, IFS, DFO, Kanchanpur. Such behavior on the part of Government employees are most unbecoming involving violation of Rule 3(1)(ii) & (iii) of the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988.”

4. Mr. K. Chakraborty, TJS Gr.-II, Additional Commissioner of Departmental Inquiries was appointed as the inquiry authority/inquiry officer to take up the inquiry. In course of inquiry, the department has relied on some documents which have been exhibited as Exhibit S1 to S8. In the inquiry, out of 11 listed witnesses, the f