Tripura High Court
Sri Tito Chakma vs The State Of Tripura @ Another on 18 February, 2020
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.1438 of 2019
Sri Tito Chakma
........Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura @ another
........Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.S. Sinha, Advocate, Ms. Swarupa Chisim, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharya, G.A. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
-O-R-D-E-R-
18/02/2020 Petitioner is a Government servant. He has challenged an order dated 19.07.2019 passed by the Chief Engineer, PWD (R&B), Tripura, Agartala, the disciplinary authority imposing punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect.
[2] Brief facts are as under:
The petitioner is engaged as a Junior Surveyor in the Water Resources Division, Agartala. He was served with the charge-sheet dated 11.02.2016 leveling two charges which are as under:
"Article of Charge No.1 That Sri Titu Chakma, Junior Surveyor posted in the office of the Assistant Engineer, Water Resource Sub-Division, Mohanpur under the office of the Executive Engineer, Water Resource Division No.1, Kunjaban, Agartala failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duties as her procured/purchased a Scorpio car bearing registration No.TR 01/AH-0506 in the year 2012 without permission Page 2 of 4 from the department for his personal use and also he did not take any permission from the authority for disposal of the said vehicle on receipt of payment of Rs.1,80,000/-.
Therefore, the aforesaid acts of Sri Titu Chakma, Jr. Surveyor attract the provision of Rule 3(1) of TCS (Conduct) Rules, 1988 which is good and sufficient reasons within the meaning of Rule-11 of the CCS (CC & A) Rules, 1965 for proceeding against him under Rule 14 of the said Rules.
Article of Charge No. II That Sri Titu Chakma, Junior Surveyor posted in the office of the Executive Engineer, Water Resource Division No.1, Kunjaban, Agartala did not care to pay any heed to the order of the competent authority for providing his personal vehicles (Scorpio Car|) bearing No. TR01/AH-0506 to the SDM, Sadar office for Assembly Election duty on hiring basis as like as for commercial purpose and also got a bearer chque for this purpose. Such disorderly behavior on the part of the Government Employee is unwise and becoming involving violation of TCS(Conduct) Rules-3(1) of 1988."
[3] He denied having committed any misconduct. With respect to Charge No-I, he pointed out that a Scorpio car was purchased by his father during his lifetime and was transferred to him only after the death of the father. He agreed that he had sold the vehicle for a sum of `1,80,000/- but for which prior permission of the Government was not obtained. He pleaded ignorance and pardon. With respect to charge article-II he stated that the vehicle was used by the Election Commission for conduct of the election in exercise of requisition powers. [4] The disciplinary authority held that the charge article- II was not proved. However, holding that the charge article-I was established, he imposed the said punishment against which the petitioner unsuccessfully appealed.
[5] Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused documents on record, I find that all the two charges leveled against the petitioner one has been dropped by Page 3 of 4 the departmental authorities. The only charge now survives is of acquisition and disposal of a vehicle without intimation to the Government. Sub-rule 3 of Rule 18 of Tripura Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1988 requires that when a Government employee enters into a transaction in respect of movable property either in his own name or in the name of the member of his family, he shall within one month from the date of such transaction report it to the prescribed authority if the value of the property exceeds certain limit. Under certain circumstances, a prior sanction is also necessary.
[6] The petitioner had not dealt with the vehicle in question at the time of its acquisition. Since it was purchased by his father and it is not the case of the department that the petitioner had made such purchase but in the name of his father. Further, when the father passed away, the title in the vehicle was transferred to the petitioner as a son and registration with the RTO was accordingly changed. This transaction also would not fall within the description of the Government employee having entered into a transaction in respect of movable property. However, the later portion of the charge namely of having disposed of the said vehicle without intimating the Government within one month would stand established. The petitioner has pleaded that he was not aware about such requirement. In any case, I find that for this minor lapse, ignoring the charge article- II which is dropped by the department and first part of the charge article-I, imposition of major punishment of withholding of two increments with future effect is excessive. Page 4 of 4 [7] Under the circumstances, only for the limited purpose of reconsideration of the penalty the proceedings are placed back before the disciplinary authority who shall consider imposition of lesser punishment.
[8] Petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(AKIL KURESHI), CJ Dipesh