THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

AGARTALA

W.A. 48 of 2013

Sri Ranendu Majumder,

Son of Sri Sachindra Kumar Majumder,

Residing at village Manur Mukh,

P.O. – SBC Nagar, Belonia - 799155,

P.S. – Belonia,

District – South Tripura.

………… Appellant

- Vs. –

1. The State of Tripura,

Represented by the Secretary/Commissioner,

Department of Home,

Government of Tripura,

Capital Complex,

P.O. Kunjaban – 799 006,

P.S. East Agartala, Tripura West.

2. The Commandant,

1^st Bn. Tripura State Rifles,

Veer Bandhu Gram, Gakulnagar,

P.O. Bishalgarh,

P.S. Bishalgarh, Sepahijala, Tripura.

3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (PNR),

Government of Tripura,

P.O. Agartala – 799 001,

P.S. West Agartala, Tripura West.

……..… Respondents

BEFORE

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. DEEPAK GUPTA

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.C. DAS

For the appellant : Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, Sr. Advocate.

Mr. P.S. Roy, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. S. Chakraborty, Addl. GA.

Date of hearing & : 23.06.2015.

delivery of

Judgment & order

Whether fit for : No

reporting

W.A. 48 of 2013. Page 2 of 5

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

(Deepak Gupta, CJ.)

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated

22.03.2013 delivered by the learned Single Judge of the Agartala

Bench of the Gauhati High Court whereby, the writ petition filed by

the petitioner was dismissed.

2.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during

elections in the year 1994, the petitioner was deputed on escort

duty with the Central Observer appointed by the Election

Commission of India. The period of duty was from 28.03.1994 to

05.04.1994. The case set up against the petitioner is that on

01.04.1904 while the Central Observer was taking rest in the

Inspection Bungalow in Sabroom, the petitioner along with one

rifleman Prananath Sarkar went in a vehicle bearing registration

No.TRT-5067 towards the market to have lunch. After having lunch

they were returning home. There was some altercation with a

newspaper hawker namely Dipak Chakraborty. Immediately some

hot exchange took place. Thereafter, the petitioner came back to

the Inspection Bungalow, took out his rifle and went back alone to

Sabroom town and started indiscriminate firing from his officially

issued rifle.

3.

A criminal case was registered against the petitioner at

the instance of the newspaper hawker Dipak Chakraborty. This

W.A. 48 of 2013. Page 3 of 5

case was compounded between the parties which has the affect of

acquittal in terms of Section 320(A) of the Cr.P.C. At the same

time, departmental proceedings were initiated against the

petitioner. In these departmental proceedings, it was found that

the petitioner had picked up a quarrel. It was found that the

petitioner had come back to the Inspection Bungalow and picked

up his rifle and thereafter had gone to the Sabroom town and

started indiscriminate firing. In the disciplinary proceedings

findings were given against the petitioner and he was finally

ordered to be dismissed from service. The appellate authority has

also rejected appeal.

4.

The petitioner thereafter filed a petition W.P. (C)

No.365 of 2002 which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge.

From perusal of the judgment in question, we find that at the time,

the petitioner was represented by one other learned counsel and

the main submission made by the counsel was that the penalty

was disproportionate to the offence committed. The second

submission made was that the disciplinary pr