MANINDRA CHANDRA DHAR Vs. TRIPURA ROAD TRANS CORPN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated September 28, 2001 passed by the learned single Judge in Civil Rule No. 262/1992.

(2.) The relevant facts and circumstances for the purpose of disposal of the writ appeal are that, the appellant was working as Heavy vehicle driver under the Tripura Road Transport Corporation. By a Memorandum dated June 16, 1990. the Managing Director of the said Corporation informed the appellant that he proposed to hold an inquiry against him under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 which were applicable to the employees of the said Corporation. Along with the said Memorandum, the substance of the imputation of his misconduct in respect of which the inquiry was proposed to be held was set out. The appellant was directed to submit within 10 (ten) days on receipt of the said Memorandum the written statement of his defence and further informed that if he did not submit the written statement of defense on or before the date specified, the Inquiry Authority may hold the enquiry against him ex parte. After receiving the said Memorandum dated June 16, 1990, the appellant did not file any written statement of defence. Thereafter the Managing Director appointed one Mr. Amit Kumar Debbarman as Inquiry Officer and the said Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated, February 27, 1992. In the said inquiry report, it has been stated in para 4 that all the articles of charges were read over and explained to the appellant and he was allowed to inspect all the listed documents and contents of such documents were also explained to him to his full satisfaction and understanding and appellant pleaded guilty to all the charges. On the basis of the said plea of guilt of the appellant to all the charges, the Inquiry Officer held that the articles of charges No. I & II are found to have been established beyond any reasonable doubt during enquiry. The Managing Director by his order dated March 21, 1992 allowed the appellant an opportunity to make a representation against the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the proposed punishment of withholding of 3 (three) periodical increments falling due to the appellantwithcumulativeeffect. Theappellant submitted his representation dated March 31, 1992. The ManagingDirector, however didnot accept the representation of the appellant and on consideration of the findings of the Inquiry Report, imposed the punishment of withholding 2 (two) periodical increments of pay with cumulative effect on the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order of punishment, the appellant submitted a representation to the Managing Director of the Corporation dated June 26, 1992, but since no relief was granted to him, he filed the aforesaid writ petition Civil Rule 262/1992. By the impugned Judgment and order dated September 28, 2001, the learned single judge dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed the appeal against the said judgment of the learned single Judge.

(3.) Mr. B.Das learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it appears from the findings of the Inquiry Officer in his report that no inquiry as such has been conducted by the Inquiry Officer and the Inquiry Officer has held the appellant guilty of all charges only on the alleged admission of guilt by the appellant. But he submitted that the appellant never admitted his guilt at any stage and therefore, it was incumbent upon the Inquiry Officer to have conducted the inquiry into the charges and only after recording the evidence in such inquiry, he should have submitted his report on the charges. But, since no such inquiry has been conducted in accordance with Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the findings of the Inquiry Officer as well as the order of the disciplinary authority on the basis of the said findings are liable to be quashed.