Tripura High Court
Sri Narendra Debbarma vs The State Of Tripura on 10 January, 2017
Author: S.C. Das
Bench: S.C. Das
1
THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 15 OF 2011
Sri Narendra Debbarma,
Son of Khilingrai Debbarma,
Resident of village Santi Colony,
P.O. Gumati Project,
P.S. Jatanbari, District-South Tripura.
... Petitioner . .ss
- Vs -
1. The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Secretary to the Department of
Forests, Government of Tripura, Agartala.
2. The Chief Secretary,
Government of Tripura, Agartala,
New Civil Secretariat Complex,
P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. East Agartala,
District West Tripura.
3. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
(Disciplinary Authority), Government of Tripura,
Pandit Nehru Complex, P.O. Kunjaban,
P.S. West Agartala, District-West Tripura.
4. The Conservator of Forests,
Southern Circle, Udaipur, P.O. & P.S. R.K.Pur,
South Tripura.
5. Divisional Forest Officer,
Gomati Forest Division,
P.O. Jatanbari, P.S. Nutanbazar,
Dist. South Tripura.
6. Shri G.R.Paul, Conservator of Forests
(Inquiring Authority),
Southern Circle, Udaipur at present posted in the Office
of the PCCF at Gurkhabasti, Aranya Bhavan,
P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. West Agartala,
District, West Tripura.
....Respondents.
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.C. DAS
For the petitioner : Mr. A.K.Bhowmik,
Sr. Advocate.
Mr. R. Datta, Advocate.
WP(C) 15 OF 2011 Page 1 of 16
2
For the respondents : Mr. S. Deb, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. S.Chakraborty, Addl.G.A.
Date of hearing &
delivery of Judgment
& Order : 10.01.2017.
Whether Fit for reporting : YES
JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)
The petitioner while was working as a Forester in the
Tirthamukh Range of Gomati Forest Division, Jatanbari, was placed
under suspension by an order dated 25.08.2007, contemplating a
disciplinary proceeding against him and the suspension order was
revoked by an order dated 07.01.2008 w.e.f.31.08.2007. He
retired from service on 31.08.2007 on his attaining the age of
superannuation. The Forest Department of the Government of
Tripura, vide Memo No.F.19(686)/VIG/For-07/9551-54, dated
25.07.2009 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), signed by the Joint
Secretary, Government of Tripura, by order of the Governor, a
disciplinary proceeding was drawn up against the petitioner on the
following Article of Charges:-
"STATEMENT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST
SHRI NARENDRA DEB BARMA, FORESTER (NOW RETD) OF
FOREST DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA
Article-I
That the said Sri Narendra Debbarma, Forester (now
Retd) while functioning as Beat Officer, Dyke-IV under
Tirthamukh Range under Gumti Forest Division, Jatanbari
willfully neglected his duty by not doing the Government
works properly as assigned to him in accordance with the
norms/orders of Forest department and general financial rule
thus, acted in manner most unbecoming of a Government
Servant and to the severe detriment to Government interest
by misappropriation and defalcation of Government money
to the tune of Rs.3,72,375/-.
Thus, Sri Narendra Debbarma, Forester (now Retd) is
charged for lack of integrity and serious misconduct.
WP(C) 15 OF 2011 Page 2 of 16
3
Article-II
That the said Sri Narendra Debbarma, Forester (now
Retd) while functioning as Beat Officer, Dyke-IV under
Tirthamukh Range under Gumti Forest Division, Jatanbari,
willfully neglected his duties, and did not carry out plantation
and forestry related works as entrusted to him as per
specifications and norms. Sri Narendra Debbarma, Fr.(now
Retd) acted in a manner most unbecoming of a Government
servant and to the severe detriment to Government interest.
Thus, Sri Narendra Debbarma, Forester (now Retd), is
charged for lack of devotion to Government duties and for
serious negligence.
Sd/-
Principal Chief Conservator of Forest,
Tripura, Agartala."
2. It is evident from the Memo dated 25.07.2009 that the
proceeding was initiated after having sanction of the Governor
under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, as amended, and, it was
directed that the Chief Conservator of Forest shall initiate/conduct
the inquiry against the petitioner on those charges.
3. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (respondent
No.3) appointed/entrusted respondent No.6, the Conservator of
Forest, to inquire into the charges and accordingly, the respondent
No.6 conducted inquiry and submitted report to the Government of
Tripura vide report dated 30.04.2010 (Annexure-14 to the writ
petition).
4. In the disciplinary proceeding, the disciplinary authority
as well as the charged officer i.e. the petitioner adduced evidence
both oral and documentary and the Inquiring Authority considering
the evidence and materials submitted the report holding that the
charges framed against the petitioner were proved.
WP(C) 15 OF 2011 Page 3 of 16
4
5. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner according
to Rules and the petitioner submitted his representation and
thereafter the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tripura by
order of the Governor passed the order of punishment dated
01.11.2010 (Annexure-19 to the writ petition). The impugned order
of punishment passed by the Chief Secretary, by order of the
Governor reads as follows:-
"GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA
FOREST DEPARTMENT
ORDER
WHEREAS disciplinary proceedings were drawn up against Shri Narendra Debbarma, Forester (now Retired) under Rule-9 of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 vide memo No.F.19(686)/Vig/For-07/9551-54 dated 25.07.2009 on the charges that the said Sri Debbarma while functioning as Beat Officer, Dyke-IV under Tirthamukh Range under Gumti Forest Division, Jatanbari willfully neglected his duty by not doing the Government works assigned to him in accordance with the norms/orders of Forest Department and general financial rules and thus, acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government Servant and to the detriment to Government interest by misappropriation and defalcation of Government money to the tune of Rs.3,72,375/-. The A.O. Sri Narendra Debbarma, Forester (now Retd) had also failed to perform duties, and did not carry out plantation and forestry related works as entrusted to him as per specifications and norms.
AND WHEREAS, Shri Debbarma submitted a representation dated 06.08.2009 alongwith Medical Certificate and prayed for 1(one) month time for submission of his written statement of defence. However, he failed to submit any representation after expiry of the stipulated time. As per rules the matter was referred to the Inquiring Authority Sri G.R.Paul, IPS, Chief Conservator of Forests, Southern Circle, Udaipur to enquire into the charges and submit his findings, vide No.F.19(686)/Vig/For- 2007/16821-27 dated, 14.10.2009.
AND WHEREAS, the Inquiring Authority has submitted his findings dated 30.04.2010. According to the findings of Inquiring Authority, the charges levelled against Shri Debbarma have been established. As per Rule 15(2) of CCS(CC&A) Rules,1965, a copy of the findings of the Inquiring Authority was sent to Shri Debbarma vide letter No.F.19(686)/Vig/For-07/2416-19 dated 06.05.2010 giving him an opportunity to submit representation, if any on the findings of Inquiring Authority. Consequently, the said A.O. Shri Debbarma has submitted a representation dated 14.05.2010.
WP(C) 15 OF 2011 Page 4 of 16 5 The contention raised by Sri Debbarma in his representation does not provide any extenuating circumstances against the findings of Inquiring Authority. The contention of the representation is not tenable as the entire evidence on record has properly been assessed and analyzed by the Inquiring Authority before coming to his considered findings. Issues have been raised by the AO Sri Narendra Debbarma, Forester (now Retd) in his representation which have already been dealt with by the Inquiring Authority during the course of enquiry. The AO could not prove his innocence and all the charges have been established according to findings of Inquiring Authority.
AND WHEREAS, the said Sri Debbarma filed a case before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Bench at Agartala vide Case NO.C.M. APPLN. NO.73 OF 2010 in WP(C) NO.142 OF 2009. The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Bench at Agartala passed an order dated 26.03.2010 in C.M. APPLN. NO.73 OF 2010 in WP(C) NO.142 OF 2009 dated 26-03-10 and granted further two months time to complete the proceeding in terms of the earlier order dated 14-09-09 passed in WP(C) No.142 of 2009. As per order dated 26- 03-10 of the Hon'ble High Court, Bench at Agartala in C.M. Appl.No.73/2010 in WP(C) 142 of 2009, two months time was to end on 25-05-10 for conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding drawn up against Sri Debbarma.
AND WHEREAS, a petition was filed before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Bench at Agartala for giving further 3 months time to complete the aforesaid disciplinary case. The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Bench at Agartala granted 2 months time to complete the aforesaid disciplinary case, vide order dated 08.09.2010 in case No.C.M.Appl. 254 of 2010, in Case No.W.P.(C) 142 of 2009 (D/O).
AND WHEREAS, the said Shri Debbarma retired from Government service w.e.f.31-08-07, the said disciplinary proceedings is required to be continued as per Rule 9(2)(a) of C.C.S. (Pension) Rule,1972 as adopted in the State of Tripura.
AND WHEREAS, after considering of all aspects of the case it was proposed to impose a penalty of withholding of 5% of his pension for a period of 01(one) year and also recover the amount of Rs.3,72,375/- being misappropriation and defalcation of Government revenue from his Leave Salary/DCRG as admissible to Shri Narendra Debbarma, Forester (now Retired). It was also proposed that the period of his suspension w.e.f.25.08.07 to 30.08.2007 may be treated as "Non-duty" and he will not get any other pay & allowances except what he had already drawn as subsistence allowances. He was given an opportunity to submit a representation if any against the proposed penalty order within 15(fifteen) days on receipt of order vide No.F.19(594)/Vig/For-04/P-1/16,908-909, dated 22.09.2010.
WP(C) 15 OF 2011 Page 5 of 16 6 AND WHEREAS, Shri Debbarma (AO) submitted a
representation dated 03-10-10 against the proposed penalty order issued vide No.F.19(594)/Vig/For-04/P- 1/16,908-909 dated 22.09.2010. In which he has raised the following issues:-
(i) The Inquiring Authority did not peruse all the papers meticulously with judicious mind.
(ii) He has "No Confidence" in Inquiring Authority.
(iii) The impugned enquiry report dated 30-04-10 submitted by the I.A. Sri G.R.Paul, IFS, CF, Southern Circle, Udaipur is illegal.
(iv) Notice was not issued to the defence witnesses namely Shri R.P. Tangwan, PCCF(T), Shri Sujit Chakma, Forester, Shri Birendra Debbarma, Forester, Shri Bhagya Chandra Kalaising, Forester, Shri Binajoy Reang, Tirthamukh, Shri Shayam Charan Tripura of Tirthamukh and as such he was denied reasonable opportunity of defence and examining defence witnesses and as such A.O. was seriously prejudiced.
(v) The Inquiring Authority in his enquiry report relied upon the statements by PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 during the preliminary enquiry without examining those witnesses and did not give scopes/opportunity to the AO in spite of making request on 16-04-10 and 19-04-10 to cross examine those witnesses.
(vi) The disciplinary proceedings were to be common proceeding with Shri Phalgoon Kr. Rangkhal, F.R.(now Retd) for the same misconduct. The A.O. stated that DW-
1 Shri Phalgoon Kr. Rangkuhal, F.R.(now Retd) (AO of another case of the same amount) admitted the charges for Rs.1,86,700/- regarding Nooncharra Plantation and subsequently he was punished an amount of Rs.1,86,700/- was recovered from his DCRG and Leave Salary. That Inquiring Authority did not consider the admission made by Shri Phalgoon Kr. Rangkhal, F.R. (now Retd).
AND WHEREAS, I have gone through the representation dated 03-10-10 submitted by AO as well as findings of Inquiring Authority and come to the conclusion as follows:-
Points raised by the AO at (i) to (iv),(vi),(ix),(x),(xi) are of general nature and are not tenable. As regards point (v) and (vii), these issues too have been looked into by the I.A. as per rules during the course of enquiry in the court of I.A. AND WHEREAS, from the representation dated 03.10.2010 submitted by the A.O. and relevant records, it appears that the charges levelled against the AO Sri Debbarma Forester (now Retired) have been conclusively proved.
AND NOW, THEREFORE, the Governor after considering all aspects of the case is pleased to impose the proposed penalty of withholding of 5% of pension of Shri Narendra Debbarma, Forester (now Retired) for a period of 01(one) year and also order to recover the amount of WP(C) 15 OF 2011 Page 6 of 16 7 Rs.3,72,375/- being misappropriation and defalcation of Government revenue from his Leave Salary/DCRG as admissible to Shri Narendra Debbarma, Forester (now Retired). It is also ordered that the period of his suspension w.e.f. 25.08.2007 to 30.08.2007 shall be treated as "Non-duty" and he will not get any other pay & allowances except what he had already drawn as subsistence allowances.
This order shall take immediate effect.
By order and in the name of Governor Sd/-
(S.K.Panda) Chief Secretary Government of Tripura To Shri Narendra Debbarma, Forester (now Retired), S/o-Shri Khilingrai Debbarma, Vill-Jatanbari Near BSF Camp, PO-Gumti Project, PS-Nutanbazar, South Tripura.
No.F.19(594)/Vig/For-2004/P-I/21, 375-76, dated 01/11/2010.
Copy to:-
The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Tripura, with a request to have it serves on the Accused Officer and concerned officers.
Sd/-
Chief Secretary, Government of Tripura."
6. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of punishment mainly on the ground that the inquiry was supposed to be conducted as per the order of the Governor by the PCCF himself and the PCCF has entrusted the inquiry to respondent No.6 in violation of the order and so Rule 9(2)(b)(iii) has been violated and for such violation the entire proceeding has been vitiated and the order of punishment is liable to be interfered and set aside.
The further ground of attacking the order of punishment is that the Inquiring Authority taken into consideration a letter dated 12.07.2007 though that letter has not been properly proved and, therefore, the petitioner has been prejudiced. WP(C) 15 OF 2011 Page 7 of 16 8
7. The respondents in reply, contended that the disciplinary proceeding was drawn up in accordance with the provisions prescribed in Rule 9 of CCS(CCA) Rules,1965 affording all opportunity to the petitioner and there was no violation of the principles of natural justice and/or any rules or procedure as prescribed.
8. Heard learned Sr. counsel, Mr. A.K.Bhowmik assisted by learned counsel, Mr. R. Dutta for the petitioner and learned Sr. counsel, Mr. S. Deb assisted by learned Addl. G.A., Mr. S. Chakraborty for the respondents.
9. Mr. Bhowmik, learned Sr. counsel with all emphasis submitted that a disciplinary proceeding may be initiated against a Government servant for inflicting punishment under the CCS(CCA) Rules,1965 (as amended) for any misconduct committed by such Government servant while in the Government job. He/she cannot be proceeded against for anything done by him while in service after his retirement. CCS (Pension) Rules has authorised the Governor to initiate a proceeding against a Government servant for misconduct while in service if such proceeding is initiated within 4(four) years from the date of the event. The statute has prescribed such concession to the Governor and otherwise after retirement no proceeding can be initiated.
According to Mr. Bhowmik, learned Sr. counsel, Rule 9(2)(b)(iii) has two parts and the first part says that the inquiry should be conducted by such authority and at such place as is WP(C) 15 OF 2011 Page 8 of 16 9 directed by the Governor and the second part prescribes that the procedure of inquiry should be the procedure as prescribed in the CCS(CCA) Rules. It is the earnest submission of the learned Sr. counsel, Mr. Bhowmik that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, respondent No.3 was directed by the Governor/State Government to conduct the inquiry but he has unauthorisedly appointed respondent No.6 to conduct the inquiry in violation of the order of sanction given by the Governor and, therefore, the entire proceeding is vitiated.
10. Per contra, learned Sr. counsel, Mr. Deb has submitted that the Government issued sanction order, dated 07.07.2008, directing initiation of the departmental proceedings on the charges against the petitioner to be conducted as per the procedure laid down in Rules 14 and 15 of the CCS(CCA) Rules,1965 by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest. According to Mr. Deb once the sanction is accorded by the State Government, the rules or procedure to be followed as prescribed in CCS(CCA) Rules,1965 in respect of the inquiry and that has been strictly followed and there is nothing to show that there was violation of any principle of natural justice or that the procedure prescribed by law has not been followed. All opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and he has not been prejudiced in any manner. So, the submission of learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik that the entire proceeding is vitiated cannot be accepted.
11. The judicial power of review of an order of a domestic tribunal in respect of a disciplinary proceeding is very limited. WP(C) 15 OF 2011 Page 9 of 16 10 Review is possible in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution only in a given case where the principles of natural justice has been violated i.e. opportunities which ought to be given to the delinquent, as per rules, were not given or that the decision of the domestic tribunal was based on no evidence and/or that the decision was taken on the basis of some materials which were not legally brought on record and/or on extraneous consideration and that the punishment inflicted was shocking to the judicial conscience. If there is no glaring violation of principles of natural justice and there is some evidence to support the decision taken by the disciplinary authority, the Court or tribunal cannot sit as a matter of appeal to re-appreciate the evidence and to substitute the decision of the disciplinary authority with its own finding.
12. If the disciplinary proceeding is initiated or inquiry conducted in violation of any procedure prescribed by law and/or such a proceeding initiated or inquiry conducted or punishment inflicted by a person having no authority to do so, I am of considered opinion that in exercise of power of judicial review this Court has ample power to interfere in it.
13. It is an admitted position that the disciplinary proceeding was initiated after the retirement of the petitioner. It is also an admitted position that Memo dated 25.07.2009 initiating the disciplinary proceeding, by order of the Governor was issued by the Forest Department (Joint Secretary) to the Government of Tripura following a sanction order of the Governor. Copy of the sanction order has not been annexed by the parties in the writ WP(C) 15 OF 2011 Page 10 of 16 11 petition. At the time of hearing learned Sr. counsel, Mr. Deb produced before the Court, the records of the disciplinary proceeding wherein I find the sanction order dated 07.07.2008 which reads as follows:-
"Government of Tripura Forest Department No.F.19(686)/Vig/For-07/9,987-92 Dated,Agartala,the 7th July,2008 WHEREAS it appears from the records that Shri Narendra Deb Barma, Forester (now Retd) while functioning as Beat Officer, Dyke-IV under Gumti Forest Division, Jatanbari willfully neglected his duty by not carrying out the Government works in accordance with the norms/orders of Forest Department and General Financial Rules.
NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-clause(i) of clause (b) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of the CCS(Pension) Rules,1972, the Governor, hereby accords sanction for initiation of Departmental Proceedings against Shri Narendra Debbarma, Forester (now Retd).
The Governor is further pleased to order that the said departmental proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the procedure as laid down in Rule 14 and 15 of the CCS(CC&A) Rules,1965 by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Tripura, Agartala.
By order & in the name of the Governor Sd/-
Joint Secretary to the Government Tripura, Agartala."
14. Memo dated 25.07.2009, as it appears was issued pursuant to above sanction memo dated 07.07.2008. Why there was a delay of one year in initiating the proceeding is not clear from the record. Any way the disciplinary proceeding was initiated according to Rule 9 after sanction of the Governor and it was within four years from the date of the event which is not disputed.
15. Rule 9(2)(b)(iii) of the CCS(Pension) Rules reads as follows:-
WP(C) 15 OF 2011 Page 11 of 16 12
(b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement, or during his re-employment,--
(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the President,
(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution, and
(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the President may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service."
16. Clause (iii) of Sub Rule (b) (2) in my considered opinion shall be read together. There is no scope of reading the same as submitted by learned Sr. counsel, Mr. Bhowmik. Sub Rule 2(b) should be read as a whole in full and not in segregation after some particular word or line. Sub clause (iii) of Clause (b) of Sub rule (2) in my opinion clearly indicates that the inquiry shall be conducted by the authority as directed by the Governor in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceeding. In the sanction order dated 07.07.2008 it was clearly stipulated that the departmental proceeding should be enquired into as per the procedure prescribed in Rule 14 and 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules which is also indicated in Memo dated 25.07.2009 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition).
I cannot agree with the submission of learned Sr. counsel, Mr. Bhowmik that sub clause (iii) of clause (b) should be read in segregation in the manner that it shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as directed by the Governor and then in an isolated manner that the procedure to be followed for such inquiry as prescribed in CCS (CCA) Rules. WP(C) 15 OF 2011 Page 12 of 16 13
17. CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 has not prescribed any limitation in initiating a disciplinary proceeding against a Government servant for misconduct committed by such Government servant while in the service. If a Government servant commits misconduct while in the Government service which could not be detected at the time when he/she was in service, but was detected after his/her retirement, the disciplinary authority has got the power to take it into consideration subject to sanction of the Governor/State Government. Once sanction is accorded as prescribed in Rule 9 of CCS(Pension)Rules, a Government servant may be proceeded against. Here, Rule 9 has put certain embargo that the event for which the disciplinary proceeding is to be initiated against a retired Government servant should be four years from the date of institution and that is a protection given by the law makers to retired Government servants so that at any time after retirement he/she is not vexed. I cannot agree with the submission of learned Sr. counsel, Mr. Bhowmik that once a Government servant is retired, as a general rule there cannot be a departmental proceeding for misconduct and that Rule 9 is an exception and a supplementary power vested on the Governor to initiate a proceeding for an event within four years from the date of retirement.
18. A Government servant after retirement cannot be said to be immuned from any action for misconduct or penal action for the act done by him during his period of service. Obviously, for a penal offence committed during the service action may be taken WP(C) 15 OF 2011 Page 13 of 16 14 subject to limitation as fixed by the relevant statute and for misconduct a disciplinary proceeding may be initiated against him/her by the sanction of the Governor/State Government and in case of Central Government by the President/Central Government subject to sanction and the period of limitation prescribed in the Pension Rules that it should be for an event within four years from the date of retirement. If the event was of beyond four years from the date of retirement disciplinary proceeding cannot be initiated.
19. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, respondent No.3 was the disciplinary authority of the petitioner while he was in service. The present proceeding was initiated after his retirement and so Rule 9 of CCS(Pension) Rules was invoked. In the sanction order as well as in Memo dated 25.07.2009, initiating the proceeding it was mentioned that the inquiry shall be conducted by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and that shall be in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental preceding i.e. the procedure prescribed in CCS(CCA) Rules,1965. So, the law does not require that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest himself has to conduct the inquiry and nobody else than the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest can conduct the inquiry.
Rule 14(2) of CCS(CCA) Rules prescribes that the disciplinary authority itself may inquire into the charges or he may appoint under that Rule to any other authority to inquire into the charges.
20. The respondent No.3 who was the disciplinary authority has issued an order dated 14.10.2009 appointing respondent No.6 WP(C) 15 OF 2011 Page 14 of 16 15 as the Inquiring Authority to inquire into the charges. A copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition. It shows that in exercise of power under sub rule (2) of Rule 14 that order was issued.
21. I find nothing wrong in the order since it was issued according to the provisions prescribed by CCS(CCA) Rules. Therefore, I am of considered opinion that when a sanction is accorded by the Governor/State Government to initiate a proceeding against a retired Government servant, the disciplinary authority mentioned in the sanction order itself may inquire into the proceeding or may pass appropriate order appointing an authority to inquire into the charges. Since Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules is applicable to conduct the inquiry, appointing any other authority to inquire into the charges by the person/authority who has been directed to conduct the inquiry cannot be said to be an action beyond jurisdiction and on this ground I find nothing to arrive at a conclusion that the proceeding has been vitiated.
22. The next argument advanced by learned Sr. counsel, Mr. Bhowmik is that a letter dated 12.07.2007 was taken into consideration by the inquiring authority illegally. A copy of that letter has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. After going through the inquiry report I find that the explanation submitted by the accused officer i.e. the petitioner pursuant to that letter dated 12.07.2007 has been exhibited as Annexure-P/3. So, it can in no way be said that letter dated 12.07.2007 has been taken into consideration by the inquiring authority illegally. Further, as I WP(C) 15 OF 2011 Page 15 of 16 16 find there is a reference of inquiry with reference to that letter dated 12.07.2007 mentioned in the list of documents (Annexure-3 to Memo dated 25.7.2009) and the Divisional Forest Officer namely Amit Debbarma (P.W.4) submitted a report to that effect pursuant to the reply given by the A.O. i.e. the petitioner in response to the letter of P.W.4 dated 16.07.2007.
23. I, therefore, find no merit in the submission made by learned Sr. counsel, Mr. Bhowmik. I have also meticulously gone through the other aspects of the disciplinary proceeding and I am of considered opinion that the proceeding was conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and there was no infirmity in the proceeding and there is nothing to hold that the proceeding is vitiated because of any infirmity.
24. The writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed.
25. The file of disciplinary proceeding submitted by learned Sr. counsel, Mr. Deb be returned.
JUDGE WP(C) 15 OF 2011 Page 16 of 16