Ranganath Mukharjee vs State of Tripura and Others

A.H. Saikia, J.—Heard Mr. P.R. Barman, learned counsel for the appellant and also heard Mr. D.K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

This Writ appeal is directed against the impugned Judgment and Order dated 8.1.1999 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 305/96 by which the Writ Petition preferred by the appellant/Writ Petitioner was dismissed holding that the continuation of the Departmental Proceeding against the appellate was in accordance with law as well as since no penalty as laid down in Rule 11 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short, ''the Rules'') was imposed on the appellant, the provisions of Rules 16(i)(d) and Rules 27(2) of the Rules, are not attracted and no procedural illegality or irregularity was committed by the Inquiry Officer.

The facts, briefly stated, as emerged out from the pleadings of the parties, are that the appellant while serving as Asstt. Head-Master at Ampinagor Higher Secondary School, South Tripura, was placed under suspension vide order dated 20.11.1991 in contemplation of a Departmental Proceeding. As even after two years of placing him under suspension, no Departmental Proceeding was initiated, the appellant approached this Court through Civil Rule No. 431/93 and the said Civil Rule was disposed of on 15.12.1993 by this Court with a direction to the respondents to dispose of the Departmental Proceeding within a period of three months from the date of the order failing which suspension order would stand revoked. Since the Departmental Proceeding could not be completed within the stipulated period, the suspension order was revoked vide order dated 27.5.1994 with effect from 15.3.1994.

After re-instatement of the appellant, however, the Departmental Proceeding had been continued and Enquiry Officer submitted the report on 28.1.1995 in which the Enquiry Officer opined that Article No. I and II of the charges were proved against the appellant when the Article No. III of the charges could not be proved. Be it mentioned that the charges against the appellant were basically for defalcation of public money.

In the mean time, the appellant retired from service as Asstt. Head-Master on attaining superannuation on 26.5.1994.

Pursuant to the said inquiry report the Disciplinary authority vide order dated 15.6.1995 ordered that as the appellant had not been fully exonerated by the Enquiry Officer, in terms of the provisions of F.R. 54(B), the period spent by the appellant under suspension would not be treated as period on duty. Thereafter, by another order dated 24.8.1995, it is further ordered that since the period of suspension with effect from 8.1.1992 to 14.3.1994 shall not be treated as period spent on duty, the appellant shall not be entitled to get any financial benefits except what he has already drawn as subsistence allowance and the said period as mentioned above shall also not be counted upon towards Pension and other pecuniary benefit etc. Being aggrieved by the said impugned orders dated 15.6.1995 as well as 24.8.1995 the appellant preferred the instant Writ Petition being Civil Rule No. 305/96.

We have perused the impugned judgment and Order passed by the learned Single Judge.

On careful scan and scrutiny we have found no exception in the impugned finding of the learned Single Judge warranting interference by this Writ Appellate Court.

The learned Single Judge, as it is abundantly clear oh the face of the Judgment itself, has discussed at length all the provisions of law, as relied upon by the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner, governing the appellant and has arrived at the final conclusion holding that there is no illegality in continuation of the Departmental Proceeding against the Petitioner after his final retirement as well as there is no procedural illegality or irregularity in conducting enquiry as per enquiry report. Further it was also observed by the learned Single Judge that as no penalty as laid down in Rule 11 of the Rules was imposed upon the appellant, the provisions of Rule 16(1)(d) and 27(2) of ''the Rules'' are not applicable in the instant case.

Mr. P. R. Barman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that as the appellant was not dismissed/removed or compulsory retired, the appellant is entitled for declaration for the period of his suspension to be treated as a period spent on duty and at the same time he is also entitled for the fully pay and allowances for the period put under Suspension. Further it as contended that once the authority had allowed the appellant to retire from service, the Departmental Proceeding ought to have culminated immediately on his retirement i.e. on 26.5.1994.

The learned counsel for the appellant in support of his submission relied on the provision of law laid down in Sub-clause (2), (4) and (5) of F.R. 54 which are not quoted herein for the sake of brevity and submitted that the authority, having over-looked those provisions of law committed an error of law by not treating the period spent under suspension as on duty, thereby depriving the appellant of getting the retrial benefit consequential to such action.

A bare perusal of those provisions of F.R. we are of the view that the appellant cannot get the protection of those provisions in view of the fact that the Departmental Proceedings was admittedly initiated against the appellant before his retirement and the alleged penalty imposed upo the appellant is not the penalty as enumerated under Rule 11 of ''the Rules''.

That apart the learned Single Judge had also recorded an elaborate discussion on the provision of law laid down under Rule 9(2)(a) of the Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short ''Pension Rules'') and held that in view of the said rules, the continuation of the Departmental Proceeding against the appellant was in accordance with law. We are in full agreement with the said view of the learned Single Judge. The Rule 9(2)(a) of the ''Pension Rules'' clearly and explicitly provides that if the Departmental Proceeding is initiated against the Government Servant while he was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall after the final retirement of the Government servant be deemed to be proceeding under this Rules. The said Departmental Proceeding shall be continued and culminated by the Disciplinary authority as if the Government servant had continued in service.

It also appears that the impugned Order dated 15.6.1995 passed by the Disciplinary authority ordering the period spent by the appellant on suspension be not treated as period spent on duty, was categorically passed under provision of F.R. 54.B. We do not find any error in passing the said Order under F.R. 54.B. We are of the view that as per the Inquiry report, the suspension of the appellant was justified and his case is squarely covered by the Provision of law laid down in F.R. 54.B.

For the aforesaid reasons and observations, we are of the view that the present appeal cannot succeed and accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs.