The court ruled that departmental inquiries against retired employees must be initiated within four years of the event, but timing is reckoned from retirement, affirming responsibility on the petitioner regarding falsified claims.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee and Mr. Kawsik Nath, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Mangal Debbarma, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the respondents-State.

2. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.237 of 2021 whereby the learned Single Judge did not find the reasons assigned in the impugned memorandum dated 12.06.2020 issued by the Secretary, Government of Tripura by which a departmental inquiry has been instituted against her to be treated as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, dismissed the writ petition.

3. In the present writ appeal, appellant-petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

"A. Admit the Appeal;

B. Call for the records;

C. After hearing both the parties, set aside the impugned Judgment and Order, dated, 12.08.2021, passed by Ld. Single Judge, in WP(C) No.237/2021;

D. Pass any other order/orders as the Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper."

4. Case of the appellant-petitioner, in a nutshell, is that the petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the Education department, Government of Tripura on 06.11.1981. She was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk by order dated 07.10.1987. She was then promoted to the post of Head Clerk by order dated 20.01.1994. In the year 2000 the department asked the petitioner to supply her caste certificate for verification. On 17.12.2004 SLSC issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner why her Scheduled Tribe certificate should not be cancelled on the ground of suppression of facts. It was alleged that she belonged to Laskar community and had obtained ST certificate by misrepresentation. The petitioner refuted such allegations by filing a reply. The SLSC passed order on 07.11.2005 cancelling the petitioner's ST certificate which the petitioner challenged by filing WP(C) No.94 of 2006 before High Court of Tripura. The learned Single Judge by common judgment dated 25.11.2013 disposed of the said petition along with bunch of similar petitions and set aside the order of SLSC. The State of Tripura preferred appeals being W.A. No.09 of 2014 and others. The Division Bench decided these appeals by a common judgment dated 16.07.2015. The view of the learned Single Judge that the order of SLSC was required to be set aside was confirmed. However, with respect to the decision of learned Judge that the matter should not be remanded to SLSC, the Division Bench differed. Consequently, the appeals of the State were allowed partially and all proceedings were remanded to SLSC for fresh disposal. The petitioners would be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the Inquiry Officer and they would also be allowed to examine their own witnesses.

5. SLSC thereupon passed fresh order in case of the petitioner on 31.05.2016 again cancelling the ST certificate of the petitioner. Petitioner filed a fresh petition being WP(C) No.1070 of 2016 challenging the said order of the SLSC and prayed for the stay of the implementation of the order. The Single Judge dismissed the petition on 31.10.2017 along with other similar petitions. Though many other petitioners filed writ appeals against the said judgment of the Single Judge, the petitioner did not. The judgment of the Single Judge thus achieved finality. In the meantime, the petitioner retired on superannuation w.e.f. 30.09.2016.

It is in this backdrop that the Secretary, Government of Tripura had issued the impugned memorandum dated 12.06.2020 along with articles of charge. The pe