SUDHANGSHU SARKAR Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA
HIGH COURT TRIPURA
STATE OF TRIPURA
Click here to view full judgement.
ARINDAM LODH,J. -
(1.)Heard Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-appellant. Also heard Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned GA assisted by Mr. S. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents.
(2.)Briefly stated, a disciplinary proceeding vide memo dtd. 23/10/2013 had been initiated against the petitioner by the respondent No. 3 on five charges. The petitioner had submitted his defence statement on 28/2/2014, specifically denying the charges. On completion of inquiry, authority found that the petitioner was not guilty on all the five charges vide his finding dtd. 21/1/2015 but the Disciplinary Authority in respect of first three charges disagreed with findings of the Inquiry Authority and asked the petitioner-appellate to submit representation. The petitioner submitted representation on 17/8/2016. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 after considering the materials stated in the representation, had imposed a penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect by order dtd. 17/3/2017. The said order of the Disciplinary Authority was challenged and the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the respondent No. 2, the Appellate Authority, on 3/4/2017. The Appellate authority did not interfere with the findings and penalty as imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1230 of 2018 before this court. The learned single Judge after hearing the parties while deciding the writ petition held that the Article III could not survive, but, upheld the conclusion of the Disciplinary Authority with respect to charge as framed under Article I vide judgment and order dtd. 24/6/2020. Learned single Judge further directed the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order on the question of appropriate punishment to be imposed in such charged circumstance. Feeling aggrieved, and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal before this court.
(3.)However, Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel has submitted that in compliance with the order passed by learned single Judge, the Disciplinary Authority modified the order of penalty and after careful examination of the case of the appellant, a penalty of withholding two increments without cumulative effect was imposed upon the appellant.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.