Authority to conduct disciplinary proceedings requires an ongoing relationship with the government servant; post-repatriation, the Secretary lacked jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Koushik Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. K. De, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents No.1 to 5 and Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6.

2. The petitioner while serving as the Senior Scientist under Indian Council for Agricultural Research [ICAR for short] was brought on deputation to hold the post of Director, Animal Resource Development Department, Government of Tripura in exercise of power provided by Rule 5(1) of Tripura Veterinary Cadre Service Rules , 1989 read with the notification dated 20.10.2001 for a period of two years from the date of joining. By the notification dated 12.09.2017 [Annexure-12 to the writ petition] the petitioner was appointed and he had joined the said post on 18.12.2017[forenoon] as would be evident from the order dated 05.01.2018 [Annexure-3 to the writ petition]. On 27.09.2018, the petitioner was showcause to explain why the disciplinary action shall not be taken against him for gross misconduct, by the memorandum dated 27.09.2018 [Annexure-4 to the writ petition]. The allegations, in nutshell are that the petitioner failed to submit an action taken report on the minutes of the review meeting of ARDD chaired by the Chief Minister, Tripura on 24.08.2018. According to the General Administration (Personnel & Training) Department that was a serious misconduct of insubordination and as such, the petitioner has been liable for disciplinary action under Tripura State Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988 read with CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The petitioner filed his reply on 29.09.2018 [Annexure-5 to the writ petition] denying completely those allegations and stating that he had never failed to prepare the project report. On the contrary, he had taken due action on the basis of such report. The Secretary to the Department had approved the action taken by the petitioner.

3. Be that as it may, on 01.10.2018, the petitioner was placed under suspension invoking the provisions of Rule 10(1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 with immediate effect [see Annexure-6 to the writ petition]. It would be apparent that the petitioner was receiving veiled threats on his life which pursued the petitioner to file a complaint to the police station on 21.03.2018 [see Annexure-7 to the writ petition]. All on a sudden on 27.12.2018, the suspension order of the petitioner dated 01.10.2018 had been revoked by the notification dated 27.12.2018 [Annexure-9 to the writ petition] with immediate effect and the petitioner was repatriated to his parent organization, ICAR. Therefore, the petitioner was no more the officer of the General Administration (Personnel & Training) Department with his repatriation w.e.f. 01.10.2018 the relation with the Government of Tripura was discontinued totally and the Government of Tripura did not have any control over the petitioner.

4. Be that as it may, on 22.02.2019, the petitioner was served the proposed articles of charges to be enquired into under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 by the memorandum dated 22.02.2019 [Annexure-10 to the writ petition]. As the petitioner has challenged the authority of the respondents, particularly the authority of the Secretary to the Government of Tripura, General Administration (Administrative Reforms) Department, it will be futile to reproduce the charges as brought against the petitioner.

5. The petitioner received the memorandum of charges dated 22.02.2019 as made available by the communication dated 09.04.2021 [Annexure-11 to the writ petition]. The petitioner filed