AGARTALA, India, June 15 -- Tripura High Court issued the following order/judgement on May 14:
[1] The petitioner was working as Scientist-C in Tripura State Pollution Control Board [in short, TSPCB] and went on retirement on 31.03.2021. When he was in service, the Member Secretary, TSPCB vide memorandum dated 20.03.2020, initiated a departmental inquiry against the petitioner. In that departmental proceeding, after submission of his written statement, he also filed a written objection raising his objection that the disciplinary proceeding which was initiated against him by the Member Secretary was junior to him. The inquiring authority thereafter referred the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for instruction. Having getting no response, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.967 of 2021 challenging the memorandum regarding initiation of departmental proceeding against him. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 03.07.2023, dismissed the said writ petition. However, the Division Bench on appeal bearing No. W.A. No.98 of 2023 allowed the prayer of the petitioner vide judgment and order dated 19.03.2024 with the following observation and direction:
"[13] We are, therefore, of the view that interest of justice would be better served if the disciplinary proceeding is initiated afresh on the memorandum of charges by a disciplinary authority who is not subordinate to the petitioner in the organization.
[14] As such, the impugned memorandum of charges dated 20.03.2020 whereby the disciplinary proceedings had been initiated under the orders of Mr. Bishu Karmakar, Member Secretary, TSPCB cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is accordingly quashed. The TSPCB/Disciplinary Authority shall initiate a fresh proceeding in respect of the same charges against the petitioner and take a decision on conclusion thereof in accordance with law in a time bound manner. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed on the aforesaid point and to the extent indicated above."
[2] Now, it is the case of the petitioner that after the said judgment of the Division Bench, the respondent No.1 by issuing a notification on 02.07.2024 [Annexure-8] appointed one Dr. K. Sasikumar, IFS, Chairman, TSPCB to act as the Disciplinary Authority.
[3] Thereafter, the petitioner raised his objection vide communication dated 28.02.2025 [Annexure-9], raising his objection that by the judgment of the High Court, the TSPCB was not authorized to declare the Chairman of the said Board as Disciplinary Authority. Meanwhile, according to the petitioner, 3[three] different memoranda are issued on 03.09.2024 [Annexure-10], 05.09.2024 [Annexure-12] and 21.09.2024 [Annexure-14] whereby, 3[three] departmental proceedings are now initiated against the petitioner by said Chairman of TSPCB.
[4] Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel referring to the Rules of Tripura State Pollution Control Board Employees' Group Gratuity Assurance Scheme, wherein the definition of employment is mentioned to the effect that the 'Employer' shall mean the 'Member Secretary', Tripura State Pollution Control Board. Learned senior counsel also referred Rule 2(g) of CCA(CCS) Rules, wherein it is mentioned that "disciplinary authority" means the authority competent under these rules to impose on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in Rule 11 of sub rules.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x17t5kG%2B310v1BKnAvlqKuMqVsBmDoi8pcaGQA5HAcNj&caseno=WP(C)/502/2025&cCode=1&cino=TRHC010014452025&state_code=20&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
