MD. RAFIK UDDIN Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner while serving in TSR as Rifleman (GD) of C Coy in the 7th Bn., for the alleged misconduct which he committed in discharge of his duties, was served with a memorandum along with the article of charges along with statement of imputation of misconduct and misbehavior (Annexure-I and II) u/R-14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification Central and Appeal) Rules, 1965, read with Rule- 40 of the TSR (DCSC etc.) Rules, 1985.

(2.) The departmental inquiry was conducted against the delinquent petitioner in terms of the provision of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 and the inquiry officer finally submitted his report dt. 17th March, 2006 (Annexure-2). In the course of enquiry, the inquiry officer recorded the statement of PW- S.I, Shri. Manindra Debnath, PW-Shri. Dhirendra Debnath, PW-Sub. Bhanu Debnath, PW-Rfn. Rakesh Roy, PW-Nk. Kashab Debnath, PW- Shri Ratan Das, PW-Rfn. Behru Singh Nigwal and PW- Rfn. Pawan Kumar and finally held charge No. 5 proved against the delinquent petitioner. The copy of the enquiry report was sent to the petitioner vide office memo dt. 6th February, 2007 with an opportunity of making submission on the report of enquiry, if so desired.

(3.) In compliance thereof, written submission was made by the delinquent petitioner on 16th February, 2007 and after due consideration of his written objection, submitted in reference to the report of enquiry furnished to him, the disciplinary authority agreed with the finding recorded by the inquiry officer in his report and took note of the judgment of the criminal court in which he was held guilty and convicted dt. 28th November, 2006 and finally inflicted penalty of dismissal from service under its order dt. 24th March, 2007 which came to be challenged by the delinquent petitioner in departmental appeal and that came to be dismissed vide order dt. 11th December, 2007 and further appeal that came to be rejected on 14th February, 2008 (Annexure-6). Further challenge before the revisional authority with inordinate delay and that was rejected vide order dt. 27th September, 2014. The article of charge No. 5 which was proved by the inquiry officer finally confirmed by the disciplinary/revisional authority.