- (1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition for setting aside the Memorandum dated 19.2.97 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) whereby the charge was framed and the disciplinary proceeding was initiated and the order dated 5.9.2006 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) whereby and whereunder the Disciplinary Authority (District Magistrate & Collector, North Tripura, Kailashahar), the respondent No. 2 herein has inflicted the penalties to the petitioner for withholding of 1 (one) increment due next without cumulative effect and also for not making any arrear pay to the petitioner other than the amount already paid during the period of suspension. Further prayer of the petitioner is to set aside the order of suspension dated 27.12.1996 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and to treat his period of suspension from 27.12.96 to 16.12.97 as on duty and consequent thereto, to pay the pay and allowances for the said period with other consequential service benefits. Heard Mr. C.S. Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B.C. Das, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. N.C. Pal, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State respondents.
(2.) Brief facts needed to be discussed are as follows: The petitioner is a Group-D employee (peon) under the Respondent No. 2 and while he was working in the office of the Secretary, Uttar Tripura Jilla Parisad, North Tripura District on deputation, he was arrested on 27.10.1996 and remained in jail custody up to 3.11.1996 as an accused in connection with Kailashahar P.S. Case No. 184 under Sections 148/149/326/325 IPC which arose on the basis of complaint made by one Md. Basir Alia. Therefore, the petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect vide order dated 27.12.1996 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition).
(3.) In connection with the aforesaid police case, a GR case No. 372 of 1996 was registered in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Tripura, Kailashahar. But being no incriminating evidence was found against the accused persons including the petitioner, they were not examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and ultimately, the petitioner was acquitted from the charge with four others.;