Allowed

Santosh Bahadur v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Tripura HC4 Sept 2017WP(C)/379/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted a further 15-day extension to the disciplinary authority to complete proceedings regarding the respondent's potential termination, noting a failure to adhere to previous time limits due to a delayed TPSC opinion.

What did the court decide?

Time further extended till 20.02.2018. If no order is issued by this time without reference to this court, the disciplinary proceeding shall stand quashed and all entitlements granted to the petitione

Santosh Bahadur Vs the State of Tripura and Ors. — Service and Employment | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

Noting by Officer or Advocate	Serial No.	Date	Office notes, reports, orders or proceedings With signature
	Saikat		I.A. 02 of 2018 In WP(C) 379 of 2017 B E F O R E THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.TALAPATRA 08.02.2018 Heard Mr. B. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-applicant as well as Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-respondent. This is the second petition for extension of time for completing the disciplinary proceeding after passing the judgment and order dated 04.09.2017 in WP(C) 379 of 2017. On 20.01.2018 this petition was filed before expiry of 15 days as extended by this court by the order dated 08.01.2018 in I.A. 01 of 2017 arising from WP(C) 379 of 2017. For purpose of reference, the relevant part of the said order, as referred by Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-respondent, is extracted hereunder: “It is really shocking that there is a growing trend of not complying the order of the court within time. However, to avoid any further complication in the matter as no final order has been passed as yet, this court will only extend the time by 15 days from today and if no order is passed by the extended time, the entire departmental proceeding shall be treated as quashed by this court”. The said extended time was supposed to expire on 22.01.2018 (both 08.01.2018 and 22.01.2018 are inclusive). It is an admitted position that the respondents did not pass the final order by this time, but they have approached this court again by filing this petition on 20.01.2018. Mr. B. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-applicant has submitted that the disciplinary action which is to be taken in termination of the proceeding, could only be after consultation with the Tripura Public Service Commission (for short TPSC) with the proposed penalty, the file was referred to the TPSC on 16.01.2018 and the opinion of TPSC was received on 19.01.2018. On the following day, the notice to the writ petitioner-respondent was issued by the memorandum dated 20.01.2015 asking him to make representation, if any, in respect of the proposed punishment within 15

¶2

days.

¶3

This court is really taken aback that knowing fully well that on 22.01.2018 the last date to pass the final order would expire how such notice could be issued for granting 15 days time without leave of this court. This action is completely in derogation of the courts order. However ,on the very date i.e. on 20.01.2018 the respondent-petitioner has filed this petition for further extension of time. The disciplinary authority should have waited for leave of this court before issuing the memorandum dated 20.01.2018.

¶4

This court does hereby ensure the act of the disciplinary authority. If in future such act is noticed by this court, stern action, without leniency, would be taken against that officer. Since it appears that the TPSC had returned their opinion only on 19.01.2018 and as the writ petitioner-respondent was statutorily entitled to a notice regarding the proposed penalty, this court is of the view that the disciplinary authority was seriously handicapped to complete the proceeding though by the earlier order it was observed that in the event of the failure of completing the disciplinary proceeding, all the charges framed against the petitioner shall stand quashed, but in the emerged situation, this court has to review the earlier order and give some more time to the disciplinary authority to complete the proceeding.

¶5

Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel has fairly submitted that though the memorandum was issued on 20.01.2018 but the writ petitioner-respondent had received it on 29.01.2018. Therefore, he is entitled to further 15 days time from 29.01.2018. As such the period for filing the representation would expire on 12.02.2018.

¶6

In view of that, the time is further extended till 20.02.2018. If no order is issued by this time, without any reference to this court, the disciplinary proceeding shall stand quashed and all the benefits as entitled to the petitioner shall be granted by the respondents forthwith. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.

¶7

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶8

A copy of this order be furnished to the learned

¶9

counsel appearing for the parties.

¶10

JUDGE

Santosh Bahadur v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Bahadur v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Nath and Anr. Vs the State of Tripura

Champa Dey Debnath Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Khokan Debnath Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Bijoy Manik Debbarma Vs Tsecl and Ors.

Putul Rani Debbarma And Another Vs State Of Tripura And 2 Ors.

Dipak Saha Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.