Tripura High Court
Sri Biplab Datta vs The State Of Tripura on 31 October, 2017
Author: S. Talapatra
Bench: S. Talapatra
THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 402 of 2013
Sri Biplab Datta,
S/o Late Ganesh Ch. Datta,
Ramnagar (near Nabadoya Sangha)
P.O. Ramnagar, P.S. West Agartala,
District: West Tripura
............ Petitioner
- Vs -
1. The State of Tripura,
(to be represented by the Chief Secretary,
Government of Tripura), Civil Secretariat
Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, Agartala, West
Tripura, PIN 799006
2. The Commissioner/Secretary to the
Government of Tripura, General
Administration (AR) Department, Civil
Secretariat Complex, P.O. Kunjaban,
Agartala, West Tripura, PIN 799006
3. The Commissioner, Department of Enquiries,
Government of Tripura, Pandit Nehru
Complex, Gurkhabasti, P.O. Kunjaban,
Agartala, West Tripura, PIN 799006
4. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
Government of Tripura, Aranya Bhavan,
Pandit Nehru Complex, Gurkhabasti, P.O.
Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-
799006
5. Tripura Public Service Commission, to be
represented by the Secretary, Tripura Public
Service Commission, Agartala, P.O.
Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799001
.......Respondents
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA For the petitioner : Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate For the respondents : Ms AS Lodh, Addl. GA.
Mr. P Dutta, Advocate
Date of hearing : 20.07.2017
Date of delivery of
judgment &order : 31.10.2017
WP(C) 402 of 2013 Page 1 of 16
Whether fit for reporting : Yes.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order under No. F.11(46)-GA(AR)/05/969-971 dated 24.05.2012 (Annexure-P/19 to the writ petition) and the order under No. F.11(46)- GA(AR)/05/663 dated 16.05.2013 (Annexure-P/21 to the writ petition) respectively, issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Tripura, GA(AR) Department [the Disciplinary Authority] and the Chief Secretary, Government of Tripura [the Appellate Authority].
2. While the petitioner was working as the Divisional Forest Officer [TFS Gr-II], Manu the petitioner was placed under suspension in exercise of powers conferred by sub-rule 1 of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, in short CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. He was also posted at Udaipur as the headquarters during the said period of suspension.
3. By the memorandum dated 31.01.2007 (Annexure-P/2 to the writ petition) a departmental inquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 was initiated on the following articles of charge:
"STATEMENT OF IMPUTATION OF MISCONDUCT OR MISBEHAVIOUR IN SUPPORT OF THE ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST SHRI BIPLAB DATTA, TRS, GR-II, (EX. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MANU FOREST DIVISION), ATTACH OFFICER, O/O THE CONSIDERATION OF FORESTS, SOUTHERN CIRCLE, UDAIPUR, (UNDER SUSPENSION).
ARTICLE NO-1 That, the said Shri Biplab Datta, TFS, Gr.II while functioning as Divisional Forest Officer under Manu Forest Division during the period from 27-4-01 to 18-7-05 failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty in so far as teak logs of questionable origin transported in 5 truck loads under the cover of 15(fifteen) transit th th passes issued between 28 & 30 March, 2005 by Shri Nanda Dulal WP(C) 402 of 2013 Page 2 of 16 Chakma, Range Officer, Lalcherra of Manu Division were detained at the Wood Based Industrial Estate (WBIE), Dharmanagar by an Investigation team led by Shri N.B. Debnath, ACF in order to cross- check the source of origin. It was found that teak timber logs were extracted against the following 5 permits issued by Shri Biplab Datta, Ex.DFO, Manu Forest Division against registration of trees:
Sl. Name of Permit No. T.P. order Mouja C.S. No. No. Registration No Joteder & date No. & Plot No. of of No. date trees logs 1 Shri 9605-08 12950-54 Lalcherra 591 & 30 129 MFD/JOTE/L Meghnath dated dated 587 CR-84/04-05 Chakma 01/010/2005 21/03/05 dated 18/10/04 2 -do- 10325-28 12945-49 -do- -do- 30 135 -do-
dated dated
22/01/05 21/03/05
3 Shri 9609-12 12940-44 Lalcherra 843/571 30 132 MFD/JOTE/L
Noaram dated dated CR-87/04-05
Chakma 01/01/05 21/03/05 dated
18/10/04
4 -do- 10321-24 12960-64 Lalcherra 843/257 18 71 -do-
dated dated 1
22/01/05 21/03/05
5 Shri 9570-73 12955-59 Lalcherra 843/256 30 154 MFD/JOTE/L
Rabinath dated dated 9 CR 86/04-05
Chakma 01/01/05 21/03/05 dated
18/10/04
Total 138 621
Permits were given by Shri Datta for extraction of 138 trees from jote/private land. But out of 138 trees, 114 trees had been illegally extracted from the Government Forests. These trees had been extracted from Government Forests illegally from an area in Lalcherra Range and thereafter, these trees were carried to the Chailengta Bazar for issue of Transit Pass.
The Forest Department, Govt. of Tripura formulated guidelines for extraction of trees from private land and communicated to all concerned officials vide NO.F.7(44)/For-FP/01/P-III/5, 707-807 dated 17/06/04. As per clause 3.2(iv) of the said guidelines, "no fresh permit shall be issued until the trees permitted earlier are felled and removed from the stump site under cover of prescribed T.P. issued by a Forest Officer authorized to issue the same".
Shri Biplab Datta issued a fresh permit in favour of Shri Meghnath Chakma vide No.10325-28 dated 22/01/05 from CS Plot No. 591 & 587 of Lalcherra Mouja against registration No.MFD/JOTE/LCR/84/04-05 dated 18/10/04 before the trees permitted earlier for extraction vide order dated 01/01/05 from the same CS Plots and against the same Registration had been removed from the stump site under cover of Transit Pass (TP). Similarly, he also issued another fresh permit in favour of Shri Noaram Chakma vide No.10321-24 dated 22/01/05 against CS Plot No. 843/2571 of Lalcherra Mouja and Registration No. MFD/JOTE/LCR-8704-05 dated 18/10/04 before the trees permitted earlier for extraction in his favour vide order dated 01/01/05 from the same CS Plot and against the same Registration had been removed from the stump site under cover of Transit Pas (TP). Thus, Shri Datta deliberately violated the provisions of the guidelines while issuing permits for extraction of trees leading to large scale illegal extraction of trees from the Government Forests.
The above act of Shri Biplab Datta, TFS, Gr.II has been an act of a gross misconduct quite unbecoming of a Government servant and thus, Shri Datta violated Rule-3(1) of the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988.
ARTICLE NO-II That, the said Shri Biplab Datta, TFS, Gr.II while functioning as Divisional Forest Officer under Manu Forest Division during the period from 27-4-01 to 18-7-05 failed to maintain absolute integrity and WP(C) 402 of 2013 Page 3 of 16 devotion to duty in so far as it has been found that timbers with jote- marking detailed at Wood Based Industrial Estate, Dharmangar had largely originated from Government forest land including Reserved Forests under Manu Forest Division. Out of 137 trees permitted from the private land, 114 trees had been illegally extracted from the Govt. Forest.
The following table shows the number of trees permitted for extraction from jote/private land, number of trees actually extracted from jote/private land and the number of trees actually extracted from Government forest land:
Sl. Name and address No. of trees No. of trees No. of trees No. of trees No. of No. of the permit holder registered permitted for extracted extracted trees for extraction from jote from Govt. which TP land land issued.
1 Shri Meghnath 198 60 12(11.637 48 (35.498 60
Chakma, S/o Uma cum) cum) (47.135
Ch. Chakma, cum)
Lalcherra
2 Shri Noaram 48 48 against 2 - 47 (38.254 47
Chakma, S/o permits cum) (38.254
Chandra Kr. cum)
Chakma, Lalcherra
3 Shri Rabinath 30 30 against 11 (16.219 19 (26.569 30
Chakma, S/o one permit cum) cum) (42.788
Samiya Chakma, cum)
Lalcherra
Total 276 138 23 114 137
(27.856 cum) (100.321 (128.177
cum) cum)
The amount of loss of government Revenue from 114 trees (100.321 cum) extracted from government forest has been assessed to the tune of Rs.5,87,208/- only. Such a huge loss to the government has been caused because of negligence of duty and failure of Shri Biplab Datta, DFO to exercise control and supervision over his subordinate staff.
The above act of Shri Biplab Datta, TFS, Gr.II has been an act of gross misconduct quite unbecoming of Government servant and thus, Shri Biplab Datta violated Rule-3(1) and 3(2)(i) and 3(2)(ii) of the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988."
4. On 23.02.2007 the petitioner disputed those charges as leveled against him by filing a written statement of defence. In the written statement of defence, the petitioner has stated that he issued two fresh permits, one for 30 trees and another for 18 trees. The petitioner had specifically contended that the permits were issued on observing the requisite guidelines viz. firstly on the joint verification, tree registration certificate was issued and only thereafter the permit for felling the trees was issued.
5. In para 6 of the writ petition, the petitioner has averred that, "alleged irregular felling of trees might be due to recklessness on the part WP(C) 402 of 2013 Page 4 of 16 of the Marking Officers. The petitioner further stated, that, during the material time, the petitioner was holding the additional charge of Divisional Forest Officer, Ambassa Forest Division and for this reason, the irregularities by the Marking Officer could not be detected by the petitioner. The petitioner also contended, that, the Article of Charge is based on surmise and conjecture as would be evident from the charge wherein it had been stated - "resulted in large-scale extraction of trees even from Government forest land"."
6. The petitioner also raised serious doubt that whether the formation of charge was based on any physical inquiry or it was merely on conjecture. The petitioner has specifically averred that no land particular in respect of the forest land from where illicit felling has been alleged, has been referred. Even before the departmental proceeding came to an end, the order of suspension as stated was revoked by the order dated 17.02.2007 (Annexure-P/4 to the writ petition).
7. Since the petitioner disputed the charges, the inquiry officer was nominated and appointed by the disciplinary authority to submit the report on termination of the inquiry. In terms of the memorandum dated 24.03.1994 (Annexure-P/6 to the writ petition) a departmental proceeding is supposed to be completed within a maximum period of nine months but in the petitioner's case, the said departmental proceeding had continued for more than a decade. The petitioner has further submitted that primarily on the basis of the joint verification report the petitioner issued the permit for extraction of the trees from the jote land and he did not issue any permit for extraction of the trees from the government land. WP(C) 402 of 2013 Page 5 of 16
8. It appears from the memorandum under No. F.19(617)/VIG/For-2005/45,406-10 dated 16.03.2007 (Annexure-P/8 to the writ petition) that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF), Tripura had directed one of the Deputy Conservators of Forest, namely, Sri P Bhattacharya to carry out an in-depth inquiry on the following aspects:
"i. Missing of 294 logs reportedly extracted illegally from Government land under Lalcherra Range as appeared from the letter No.F.11-1/Jote-Lalcherra/Enq/MFD-05/1,562 dated 17/06/2006 of the DFO Manu.
ii. Dispatch of 32 logs under questionable circumstances as appeared from letter No.F.11-1/Jote/Enq/MFD- 05/Lalcherra/5,866-67 dated 04-12-06 of the DFO Manu. iii. Release of 55 detained timber logs from WBIE, Dewanpassa vide order dated 04/01/2006 of the DFO Manu.
iv. Process and disposal of the detained logs from WBIE, Dewanpassa reportedly collected from Government land irregularly."
9. After inquiry it is not in dispute that the preliminary inquiry report was submitted by the said forest officer drawing the following inference:
"i. It would be evident from the discussions made hereinabove that out of 509 illegally extracted timber logs against permits issued by the then DFO Manu, no TP was issued for 621 logs and therefore, it could be reasonably accepted that those logs were lying at the site or in its neighbourhood when the inquiry was in progress. Shri Debnath, TFS in course of inquiry never attempted to locate and seize those logs; nor reported the actual position to the Conservator of Forests, Northern Circle. On the contrary, he indicated in his final report submitted to the CFNC that all those logs were transported out under cover of Transit Passes issued by the Range Officer, Lalcherra. It was only after about one year that Shri Debnath, meanwhile joined as DFO Manu, vide letter dated 13-03-06 asked the Range Officer, Lalcherra to arrange seizure all those logs when the latter expectedly reported that he could not locate those logs. Had Shri Debnath acted sincerely while conducting the inquiry he could very well arrange seizure of those logs. Action of Shri Debnath is found to be inadequate resulting in substantial loss to the Govt. which was quite avoidable.
ii. Action of Shri Debnath is also found to be inadequate in the matter of detention/seizure of 37 logs which were transported between 02-04-05 and 03-04-05. Although he completed his inquiry in April, 2005, he reported about the transportation of those logs in December 2006 only. Had he reported the matter to the Conservator of Forests, Northern Circle or recorded the same in his final inquiry report, the CFNC could have arranged seizure of those logs involving the territorial staff of concerned Forest Division. For inaction on the part of Shri N.B. Debnath, TFS the government again sustained loss which was otherwise avoidable.WP(C) 402 of 2013 Page 6 of 16
iii. Release of 55 detained timber logs from WBIE, Dewanpassa vide Order dated 04.04.2006 of the DFO Manu is illegal and detrimental to the Govt. interest.
iv. From the evidences on record it is also evident that the DFO Manu, Shri Debnath disposed of 255 logs through auction without having issued confiscation orders under the appropriate provisions of the Law and such lapses might embarrass the department if any one affected approach for a judicial scrutiny of the issue.
v. An amount of Rs.1,32,029.00 was realized through the sale of 255 logs as aforesaid when the total valuation of the timber logs extracted irregularly was Rs.7,72,828.00. Thus the loss caused to the Govt. which was quite avoidable is Rs.6,40,799.00. Improper action & mishandling of the case by Shri Debnath, TFS, as discussed herein above, prima facie contributed to the above loss. He has besides failed to act professionally in exercising powers ordinarily delegated to the DFOs."
The said report (containing 18 pages) dated 23.06.2007 is available at Annexure-P/9 to the writ petition.
10. It is to be noted that there was another inquiry by one Shri N.B. Debnath, Assistant Conservator of Forests, Northern Circle, Kumarghat on the same aspect of the matter but the PCCF did not accept his report and directed Sri P Bhattacharya, Dy. Conservator of Forests (P&D) to file a fresh report. In the said report filed by Sri P Bhattacharya, Deputy Conservator of Forests (P&D) it was stated that the earlier inquiry was not directed to locate the logs as seized and reportedly missing. The said report of Mr. NB Debnath, according to the petitioner was never acted upon.
11. By another report dated 24.05.2005, the Conservator of Forests, Northern Circle, Kumarghat had confidentially informed to the PCCF by the communication dated 25.04.2006 (Annexure-P/10 to the writ petition) that the petitioner had illegally issued two TP orders for total of 60 trees on the said date in favour of Sri Meghnath Chakma and two TP orders for a total 47 trees in favour of Sri Noaram Chakma on the same date. The DFO's action was uncalled for and in violation of the WP(C) 402 of 2013 Page 7 of 16 Government guidelines issued vide No. F.7(44)/For-FP/01/P-III/5707-807 dated 17.06.2004 of the Forest Department, which required that no fresh permit would be issued until the trees permitted earlier were felled and removed from the stump site. It was also mentioned in the said report that three tribal jotedars had sold their standing trees at throwaway price in advance to the traders, and the entire benefit from such irregularities and out-of-the-way relaxation had obviously gone to the unscrupulous traders, resulting not only in loss of revenue, but in wanton destruction of the forest ecosystem with adverse ecological consequences. Thereafter, having regard to the report filed by Sri N.B. Debnath (ACF) dated 30.03.2005 it had been observed in the said communication dated 25.04.2005 (Annexure-P/10 to the writ petition) that Sri Nanda Dulal Chakma, Range Officer, Lalcherra was primarily responsible for the large-scale illicit removal of trees from forestland in the name of jote land in the instant case. The petitioner was also indicated to be responsible for issuance of TP orders in violation of the Government guidelines providing illegitimate advantage to the unscrupulous traders.
12. By another communication dated 20.04.2005, the Conservator of Forests, Northern Circle, Kumarghat had observed that the petitioner failed to ensure proper check and control over the Range Officer, Lalcherra Range, and he had violated the government procedure for extraction of trees from the private land as laid down in the circular No.F.7(44)/For-FP/01/P-III/5707-807 dated 17.06.2004 issued by the Forest Department. The irregularities in respect of issue of permits is confined to the permits issued in the name of one Meghnath Chakma for extraction of 30 trees (the order dated 22.01.2005) and the TP order for WP(C) 402 of 2013 Page 8 of 16 transportation of the timber logs (the order dated 21.03.2005) without noticing the earlier permit dated 01.01.2005.
13. There had been allegation in the matter of issuance of permits in the name of one Noaram Chakma for extraction of 18 trees (the order dated 22.01.2005) and the order for transportation of logs (the order dated 21.03.2005) without taking notice of the earlier order dated 01.01.2005. Since the petitioner has admitted that he committed certain irregularities as he bona fide believed the joint inspection report issued by the Revenue Department officers and the forest officials and for his additional charge he could not exercise required supervision, further details will be of no use.
14. There is no dispute that on completion of the inquiry being case No. 123/INQ/FOR/2007, the inquiry report was submitted on 04.08.2009 (Annexure-P/16 to the writ petition) holding that the prosecution has proved the charges brought against the petitioner. The petitioner was furnished a copy of the said report asking him to file a representation within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the memorandum dated 19.12.2011 issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Tripura, the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner has filed the representation on 20.01.2012 (Annexure-18(A) to the writ petition) by reiterating his earlier stand. He has contended that the inquiry report submitted in pursuance to the direction of the PCCF (Exhibit-D2) has been totally brushed aside the observation that Sri N.B. Debnath, the then DFO, Manu was responsible for the actual loss.
15. Having considered the said representation, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the following penalties on the petitioner: WP(C) 402 of 2013 Page 9 of 16
i. To recover 50% of the loss of government revenue to the tune of Rs.5,87,208/- for negligence and breach of government orders. An amount of Rs.2,93,600/- may be recovered from the salary of Shri Biplab Datta @ Rs.5,000/- per month in 58 installments and Rs.3,600/- as against 59th installment.
ii. His promotion may be withheld for a period of 3(three) years from the date of issue of the order.
16. The said final order dated 24.05.2012(Annexure-P/19) which has been challenged in this writ petition was questioned by the petitioner by filing an appeal. The appellate authority having due regard to the grounds dismissed the appeal by the order of affirmance dated 16.05.2013. The relevant part is extracted hereunder:
" ......
Now, Shri Datta claimed the figure of Rs.5,87,208.00 was based on surmise and not a fact. Going through the Report (exhibit D/2) of Shri Bhattacharya it is established that nowhere did he refuted the calculation of the loss incurred by the government, as was established in the report of Shri N.B. Debnath. So the moot figure of 144 trees felled from Govt. land, was not disputed.
iii) Shri Datta in his appeal has claimed that he was held responsible for the failure and wrongs committed by his subordinate staff. This contention of Shri Datta is not tenable. He was the custodian of the government property in his jurisdiction as DFO, Manu. It is expected of his to exercise his power and authority over his subordinates in the discharge of their duties to dissuade them of any delinquent behaviour which may result in loss to the government. In the instant proceedings against Shri Datta, it is clearly established that due to poor supervision of his subordinates by Shri Datta, there was illegal felling of trees and loss of revenue to the government."
Finally, the appellate authority observed that the act of the petitioner was wholly unbecoming of a government servant.
17. Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has strenuously argued that there is no evidence to hold that the charge as provided under Article 1 of the memorandum dated WP(C) 402 of 2013 Page 10 of 16 31.01.2007 is proved. According to him, there is no record that for any wrong action of the petitioner the said loss was caused to the government. It was for the wrong committed by Nanda Dulal Chakma, Forest Ranger the loss, if any, had occurred. But that person was completely let off. But the petitioner has been saddled with the said penalty of recovery of 50% of the assessed revenue loss. Even the inquiry report by Sri P Bhattacharya has not indicated to that aspect of the matter. The petitioner has acted bona fide and according to Mr. Bhattcharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner that cannot be stated to be unbecoming of a government servant or to constitute misconduct for violating Rule 3(1) of the Tripura Civil Service (Conduct) rules, 1988 as alleged.
18. From the other side, Ms AS Lodh, learned Addl. GA and Mr. P Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the TPSC have jointly contended that there was no procedural impropriety and the safeguards as provided under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 were all extended to the petitioner. Having afforded the opportunities to the petitioner, the inquiry authority submitted the report and the representation of the petitioner against the said report is a verbose without any support from any evidentiary materials. Moreover, the petitioner has admitted the issuance of the permits in question to have been irregularly issued by him without proper application of mind.
19. Ms Lodh, learned Addl. GA submitted that the petitioner all through has made a robust attempt to create a cloud in respect of the permits he issued as if those were issued only from the jote land but from the report it has clearly been established that those trees were illegally WP(C) 402 of 2013 Page 11 of 16 felled from Lalcherra Range. Those reports were never disputed by the petitioner and from exhibit D/2 it has been clearly established that those trees were not related to the jote land. However, even while issuing the permit to those persons the petitioner has styled those permits as if the said extraction was being carried out from the jote land.
20. It is to be mentioned here that the respondent No.5 did not file any reply to this petition as they were only consulted by the disciplinary authority before imposing the punishment.
21. In reply, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Apex Court in State of A.P. Vs. P.V. Hanumantha Rao and Anr. reported in (2003) 10 SCC 121 where the Apex Court having reiterated Sawarn Singh v. State of Punjab, (1976) 2 SCC 868 has held that ".....neither in exercise of the power of writ under Article 226 nor in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court will convert itself into a court of appeal and indulge in reappreciation or evaluation of evidence. The power of the High Court in writ jurisdiction to interfere where important evidence has been overlooked and the legal provisions involved are misinterpreted or misapplied has been recognised even in the case of Sawarn Singh (supra)......". The relevant observation from Sawarn Singh (supra) may be extracted hereunder:
"13. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by an inferior tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued only if in recording such a finding, the tribunal has acted on evidence which is legally admissible, or has refused to admit admissible evidence, or if the finding is not supported by any evidence at all, because in such cases the error amounts to an error of law."
22. Placing reliance on the said position of law, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that there is no proof that the petitioner had committed any WP(C) 402 of 2013 Page 12 of 16 wrong by his action nor is there any reliable evidence as to the assessment of the loss of government revenue and as such those findings are wholly unsustainable.
23. One of the aspect is manifest on the face of the inquiry report and for this purpose we may make a short reference to both the Articles of Charges. Article-1 encompasses the conduct of the petitioner in issuing the permits without noticing the former permits. Article-2 encompasses the loss of government revenue for removal of 114 trees (100.321 cum of timber from the government forest land). Three points were framed for decision, viz.,
(i) Whether the petitioner while functioning as DFO under Manu Forest Division during the period from 27.04.2001 to 18.07.2005 issued fresh permits for extraction of trees from jote/private land in violation of govt. guidelines which resulted in large scale felling of trees even from Govt. land?
(ii) Whether the petitioner while functioning as DFO under Manu Forest Division during the period from 27.04.2001 to 18.07.2005 failed to exercise control and supervision over Sri Nanda Dulal Chakma, Forest Range Officer who allowed large scale and irregular/illicit felling of trees from Govt. land and marking of logs which led to loss of Govt. revenue amounting to Rs.5,87,208/-?
(iii) Whether by the above acts as mentioned at point No.(1) and (ii), the petitioner violated Rule-3(i), 3(2)(i)& 3(2)(ii) of the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988? WP(C) 402 of 2013 Page 13 of 16
24. After recording the evidence both oral and documentary from both the sides, the findings against points No. i & ii as recorded by the inquiring authority inter alia are as follows:
"On careful examination of the case records (viz. depositions of witnesses, exhibits submitted by both parties) it appears that the timber with Jote-marking detained at Wood Based Industrial Estate (WBIE), Dharmanagar had largely originated from the Government Forest land including Reserved Forests under Manu Forest Division.
The following tables shows the number of trees permitted for extraction from Jote/Private land, number of trees actually extracted from Jote/private land and the number of trees actually extracted from Government Forest land.
Sl. Name & Address No. of trees No. of trees No. of trees No. of trees No. of
N of the permit registered permitted extracted extracted trees for
o. holder for from Jote from Govt. which TP
extraction land land. issued.
1 Shri Meghnath 198 60 12 (11.637 48 (35.498 60 (47.135
Chakma, S/o cum) cum) cum)
Uma Ch.
Chakma,
Lalchera
2 Sri Noaram 48 48 against 2 - 47 (38.254 47 (38.254
Chakma, S/o permits cum) cum)
Chandra Kr.
Chakma,
Lalchera
3 Sri Rabinath 30 30 against 11 (16.219 19 (26.569 30 (42.788
Chakma, S/o one permit cum) cum) cum)
Samiya Chakma,
Lalchera
Total 276 138 23 (27.856 114 (100.321 137
cum) cum) (128.177
cum)
The amount of loss of government revenue from 114 trees (100.321 cum) extracted from government forest land has been assessed t the tune of Rs.5,87,208/- only. Such a huge loss to the government has been caused due to negligence of duty and failure of the A.O. Sri Biplab Datta to exercise control and supervision over his subordinate staff. The above large scale irregular felling of valuable trees from the government Forest land was caused due to direct involvement of marking officers viz., Range Officer and Beat Officer of Lalchera Range. A.O. Shri Biplab Datta as a DFO, Manu Forest Division not only failed toexercise control and supervision over his subordinate staff as Controlling officer, but also indulged to carry out such irregular activities by violating Government instructions in the form of issuing untimely T.P. leading to illegal removal of trees from the government Forest Land.
On the other hand, the A.O. Sri Biplab Datta has tried to establish his innocence by producing 3 (three) Defence Witnesses namely Sri Nepal Ch. Das (DW-1), Sri Nanda Dulal Chakma (DW-2) & Sri Mohan Lal Dewan (DW-3) along with two documentary evidences as EXbt. D/1 & D/2. Shri Nanda Dulal Chakma (DW-2) stated that "felling of the trees was done by the petitioner and marking of logs and stump were done by me with my hammer." While during cross- examination he stated that "it is true that I had given my hammer to Shri Nirmal Debbarma, Forester for doing the marking of trees". In the statement of Sri Chakma, DW-2) recorded by Sri Nirode Baran Debnath (Exbt.S/2) series(Annexure-XXXVIII) he can confessed that he could not do the marking by himself and handed over the marking hammer to Sri Nirmal Debbarma, Fr on good faith and hence there was irregularities in the marking list. From the above contradictory depositions of Shri Nanda Dulal Chakma (DW-2) it is proved that his statements and deposition are false and lot of irregularities in respect of marking, felling etc. of the concerned WP(C) 402 of 2013 Page 14 of 16 Jote land plots were taking place due the negligence of Sri Chakma (DW-2).
Besides, the A.O. Sri Biplab Datta in his defence statement stated that the Investigating Team have depended mainly on surmise. It is not correct at all. Because, it was found from the enquiry that 114 nos. of trees extracted through 3(three) permits were not felled from the permitted jote lands. Had these 114 trees were collected from any other Jote land or legal source, these trees would have not been shown as extracted from concerned 3(three) Jote land plots of Meghnath Chakma, Noaram Chakma and Rabinath Chakma. But the A.O. Sri Biplab Datta has failed to prove that the said 114 trees were extracted from the permitted 3 (three) Jote land plots or any other Jote land/legal source.
In view of the above, it is evidence from the record that there was lot of irregularities and negligence in duties among the staff in the Manu Forest Division which resulted in large scale irregular felling of tree sfrom the Government forest land in the name of Jote land during the tenure of the A.O. Sri Biplab Datta, as DFO, Manu Forest Division and Sri Datta has miserably failed to exercise his control and supervision as Controlling Officer over his subordinate staff which caused loss of Government Revenue of Rs.5,87,208/-. This is a gross misconduct on behalf of the A.O. Sri Biplab Datta, TFS Gr.II, Ex. DFO, Manu which is quite unbecoming of a Government servant and this has been proved beyond any doubt."
[Emphasis added]
25. In respect of the point No. iii, the finding as recorded by the inquiring authority, reads inter alia as follows:
"In conclusion, it is stated that the conduct of the A.O. Sri Biplab Datta, TFS Gr.II, Ex. DFO Manu Forest Division being Govt. employee is unbecoming and unacceptable and in contravention of provisions of the Tripura Civil Services (conduct) Rules, 1988. By the act as mentioned by the Prosecution witnesses in their depositions the Accused Officer violated the Rule-3(1) of the Tripura Civil Services (conduct) Rules, 1988. Therefore, I am compelled to hold that the prosecution has proved the charges brought against the Accused Officer namely Sri Biplab Datta, TFS Gr.II, Ex. DFO Manu Forest Division."
26. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority has stated that the charge as drawn up under the Articles has been proved and the petitioner has filed representation against the findings of the inquiry authority. In its considered opinion, this Court finds that the final inference drawn by the Inquiring Authority is correct summing up of the findings, and hence the irresistible conclusion that would follow is that the charges against the petitioner are proved. On scrutiny of the records, this Court finds that the minimum supervision was conspicuous by absence and that WP(C) 402 of 2013 Page 15 of 16 is absolutely unbecoming of a government servant and loss that has been incurred by the government has been rightly assessed by measuring the same by the approved rate per cum. Since the petitioner has been held jointly responsible, he has been directed to pay 50% of the loss. This Court finds no infirmity in the approach taken by the disciplinary authority. Even the additional penalty of withholding of promotion for three years from the date of the impugned order dated 24.05.2012, is not disproportionate to the charges as proved.
27. The decision of the Apex Court in P.V. Hanumantha Rao and Anr.(supra) as relied by Mr. Bhattacharjee has no relevance in the presence context as it has been reiterated by the Apex Court that the jurisdiction of Article 226 cannot be converted into an appellate jurisdiction. Only in the event when it can be established that there is no evidence or the evidence does not support the allegation, the High Court has power even under Article 226 or under the supervisory jurisdiction as provided under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with a finding returned by the inferior tribunal. But this is not a case here where this Court shall lay its hand for interference.
28. Having observed thus, this petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
29. The records produced by Ms AS Lodh, learned Addl. GA be returned forthwith.
JUDGE lodh WP(C) 402 of 2013 Page 16 of 16