Delay in seeking judicial remedy precludes relief for service termination related to misconduct, despite later acquittal.

JUDGMENT

S.G. Chattopadhyay, J. - This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 26.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 79 of 2021 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant who was dismissed from service due to his involvement in a criminal case. The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus directing the State-respondents to reinstate the writ petitioner (appellant herein) in service in view of his acquittal from the criminal case.

2. The factual background of the case is as under:

Appellant, Sarada Nama Sudra of Salema of Dhalai district was appointed as a Special Police Officer (SPO for short) in Khasiapunjee TSR Camp under Salema Police Station by an order of the District Magistrate and Collector of Dhalai district issued on 19.08.2002 [Annexure-1 to the writ petition]. It was stated in his said appointment letter that he was appointed as an SPO along with others for a period of 3(three) months from the date of issuance of the letter for maintaining peace and protecting the life and property of the inhabitants of the area of his jurisdiction. Engagement of the appellant was extended from time to time and he continued as an SPO in Tripura Police till he was discharged and his name was struck off from the strength of SPO w.e.f 02.07.2014 in view of his involvement and detention under arrest in Salema P.S. case No.19 of 2014 registered under Sections 366A, 506 and 109 read with Section 34 IPC [Annexure-2 to the writ petition]. The writ petitioner who is the appellant herein stood the trial in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge at Kamalpur in Unakoti Judicial District (as it was then). At the end of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge by an order dated 03.03.2016 returned the finding of acquittal of the appellant and 3 other co-accused from the charges brought against them. Consequent to his acquittal, the appellant submitted representation dated 23.7.2016 and also on 15.12.2017 and thereafter on 21.9.2020 to the departmental authority seeking reinstatement in service on the ground of his acquittal from the criminal case. But, his representations yielded no result.

3. The appellant then approached this Court seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution by filing W.P.(C) No.79 of 2021. The appellant, being the writ petitioner, sought for the following relieves in his writ petition:

(i) To issue rule to the respondents to show cause as to why a writ of Certiorari or in the nature thereof shall not be issued quashing/cancelling/ the Order No. L/727-31/SP (DIB)/DLI/JWN/14, dated 15-07-2014 (ANNEXURE-2).

(ii) To issue rule to the respondents to show cause as to why a writ of Mandamus or in the nature thereof shall not be issued for mandating/directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the post of Special Police Officer (SPO).

(iii) Issue Rule NISI.

(iv) *************

(v) Pass any other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.

4. The State-respondents filed counter affidavit on 22.6.2021 before the learned Single Judge. It was mainly averred in the said counter affidavit of the Respondents that the writ petitioner (appellant herein) was engaged on 'No work No pay' basis for a specified period of 03 months in terms of Section 18 of Tripura Police Act , 2007 and his tenure was extended from time to time by issuing written orders. Since the writ petitioner (appellant herein) was involved in a criminal case of serious nature and he was also arrested and detained in police custody, he was dismissed from service on the ground of misconduct. State-respondents annexed the order dated 04.10.2001 issued from the Office of the Director General of Police, Tripura (Annexure R-1 to the counter affidavit) which provides that in case of unsatisfactory service, indiscipline or any other conduct unbecoming of an SPO, he may be discharged by D.M. on a report by S.P. It was asserted by the re