Akil Kureshi,C.J. - (1.) The petitioner has challenged an order dated 9th June, 2014 passed by the Commandant, Home Guards, Tripura by which he was dismissed from service as also an order dated 6th December, 2014 by which the petitioner's appeal against the said order of dismissal came to be rejected.
(2.) Brief facts are as under : The petitioner was engaged as a Home Guard in the year 1962. On 20th June 2005, the department issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to explain five charges of misconduct. It was alleged that the petitioner had left his headquarter unauthorisedly and gone to Hyderabad for political motives while he was on sick leave. He had undertaken a journey from Agartala to Guwahati by a private transport and from Guwahati to Hyderabad by train from there he returned from Bishakhapattam to Guwahati by train and again arrived at Agartala by bus from Guwahati. While at Hyderabad he had taken part in political programmes and secret meetings. He had also made preparations for a proposed disobedience movement scheduled on 7th April, 2004. He had thereby exhibited gross misconduct in discharge of his duties.
(3.) The petitioner replied to the said notice on 5th July, 2005 and denied the charges. He claimed that he had never left the State. He was genuinely ill and had not engaged himself in any impermissible activities. An inquiry was thereupon conducted resulting into the disciplinary authority passing an order on 19th December, 2005 by which his name was struck off from the role of the Home Guards. The petitioner challenged the said order before the High Court by filing WP(C) No.246/2006 which was disposed of by a Division Bench by a judgment dated 12th February, 2014 in which it was held that neither the report of the inquiry nor the statements of witnesses were supplied to the petitioner. The High Court, therefore, set aside the said order allowing the authorities to proceed from the stage of inquiry report which would be supplied to the petitioner along with statements of the witnesses recorded during such inquiry. The petitioner would have fifteen days time to make his representation in response to the inquiry report. The Commandant would thereafter take a fresh decision.;