S.TALAPATRA,J. - (1.)Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. H. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 and 4 and Mr. P. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3.
(2.)By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the memorandum dated 31.05.2013 under No.F.7(1053)/DM(D)/ESTT/2012/858-62 [Annexure-4 to the writ petition] whereby similar set of charge vis-a-vis the charge as framed in the criminal prosecution, save and except the article of charge, as reproduced below, was framed:
Article-III It reveals from the report of the BDO, Dumburnagar Sri Utpal Chakma, JE, Dumburnagar RD Block that not only negligence of Govt. duties failure to implement various development works and non-compliance of order. Most of the period Sri Chakma, JE willfully absenting himself from Govt. duty and it has badly hampered for development works as reported by Sri Arindam Das, BDO, Dumburnagar vide letter No.F.(12)/BDO/DNB/ESTT 2012-12/11380-84 dated, 07.12.2012 which is misconduct and unbecoming of a Govt. servant to violation of Rule-I (III) of Rules 3 of Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988.

As in the criminal prosecution, the petitioner has been acquitted, he has questioned, by filing this writ petition, the continuance of the disciplinary proceeding on the similar set of charge.

(3.)Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that the charge relating to the mis- appropriation of fund was the charge also in the criminal prosecution which was initiated based on the First Information Report registered as Gandacherra P.S. Case No.34 of 2012 under Section 409 of the IPC. After investigation, the final police report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C was filed and based thereon the charge was framed. On culmination of the trial, by the judgment and order dated 24.11.2016 delivered in GR. 360 of 2012, the petitioner has been acquitted from the said charge. In the said judgment it has been observed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gandacherra, Unakoti Judicial District, as he then was, while acquitting the petitioner as follows:
"As a conclusion to the above discussion I hold that, prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The points for determination accordingly stand decided."

;