Dilip Kumar Chakraborty v. State Of Tripura And 4 ORS


 


      !"!#!$%&' 





   



 
 




 !


"


!
#


($

  
)*++

%
,-
"*%!%*
 !'     


! & 







'(  

#







) 
"

 
 
-
"*"**.*%!&'




'(  

#







 
-
"*/0%*.*%!&%%"* '(  

#







"

 

) 





 
1-
"* 0. !

"*0+*2!% *+%+' '(  

#







   3-
"* ..0%!0%*0*!

 4' * &


&&
'   





#


 



  5  
6758 -/ 
 -5-













)

 
+

,
!
" 
-' .
(&














)

   
/0








+

,
!


'

)

   
1
+

,


(&














"

  
2


( 
















3 

* 

+

-9-,3 4  
 

  


+


5 67





/ 86
 6  






#

8 







 
 

!
"



&

 

 

  
 
9: ;/ 9;;:
 


 

! & 
'(

#



"

&


 
8  

"

&


 
  


 

8   

/;<


 




8
 


 
 
/= ;= 9;;:
 


 
! & 
'(

#






 
8  

 


"

&


 
8
  
- > 
,
!
" 
-' .
 
&



 

8


,
!

 

'



   
7
/

0

,


 
&


   
7
1
-
#
  
&



&
 &



&  
8
8

 

  
 


* & 
 

,
) 
"

( 
 
8 

! ?

( 
 
 
;1 ;@ 9;;A
-  B /


8 
.




8 
 &

 +
"Article I
That
the
said
Sri
Dilip
Kumar
Chakraborty,
FR,
while
functioning
as
Range
Officer,
Manu,
received
and
forwarded
the
application
of
one
Sri
Chandan
Acharjee,
S/O
Late
Jogendra
Acharjee
of
Hapania,
Agartala
to
DFO,
Manu
for
collection
of
stone
boulders,
without
proper
scrutiny
of
application
and
field
verification,
resulting
in
irregular
grant
of
permission
for
extraction
of
stone
boulders.
Thus
he
acted
negligently
and
with
ulterior
motive
to
give
undue
benefit
to
the
trader
in
detriment
to
the
Government
interest.

Article II




That
Md.
Safiqur
Rahaman,
HFG
of
Kathalcherra
Beat
under
Manu
Forest
Division,
without
authority
started
extraction
of
12.9.15
cum
of
stone
boulders
and
chips
from
Kukicherra
riverbeds
located
in
Longthorai
R.F.
by
engaging
labourers
of
nearby
village,
illegally
and
in
violation
of
the
provisions
of
Forest
(Conservation)
Act,
1980.
Further,
illegal
extraction
of
14,463
cum
of
stone
boulders
from
Ghagracherra
riverbeds
located
in
Longtharai
RF
was
also
arranged
by
Shri
Dilip
Kumar
Chakraborty.
FR
then
RO
Manu
and
Md.
Safiqur
Rahaman,
HFG
with
an
intention
to
give
undue
benefit
to
the
trader
Shri
Chandan
Acharjee
S/O
Late
Jogendra
Acharjee
of
Hapania,
Agartala
and
to
the
detriment
of
Government
interest.

Shri
Dilip
Kumar
Chakraborty,
FR
then
RO
Manu
failed
to
stop
such
illegal
extraction
of
stone
boulders
timely
and
take
action
against
the
concerned
staff
and
the
persons
involved
in
such
extraction.
Thus
Shri
Dilip
Kumar
Chakraborty,
FR
and
Md.
Safiqur
Rahaman,
HFG
are
charged
for
serious
misconduct
and
dereliction
of
duty.
Article III
That
Shri
Dilip
Kumar
Chakraborty,
FR
then
RO
Manu
and
Md.
Safiqur
Rahaman,
HFG
tried
to
mislead
the
Department
by
concealing
the
information
and
giving
false
statements
and
reports
as
an
attempt
to
cover
up
the
whole
issue
when
the
matter
was
being
investigated
by
the
protection
staff.
Thus
they
are
charged
for
serious
misconduct.

Thus
by
the
above
acts
of
omissions
and
commissions,
Shri
Dilip
Kr.

Chakraborty
FR
then
RO
Manu
and
Md.
Safiqur
Rahaman,
HFG,
failed
to
maintain
absolute
integrity,
devotion
to
duty
and
exhibited
conduct
unbecoming
of
a
Government
servant
and
thereby
violated
the
provisions
of
Rule
3(1)
(i)
(ii)
&
(iii)
of
Tripura
Civil
Services
(Conduct)
Rules
1988."




 

& 

 
  
 



#   


8



    
"

 
C? 



 
 
B 

8   

&   

& 
& 


 
 


 & 



 

& 
 

 

3- #
 
 
 ( 


  




 


    


3 
! & 


'(

#


) 
"

 
8  


 



8+




"3.

That
Sir,
besides
the
above,
the
prosecution
witness
have
given
contradictory
statement
during
their
examination.
Their
key
witness
Shri
Nirode
Baran
Debnath,
ACF
has
given
a
false
statement
before
the
Inquiring
Authority.
In
each
and
every
stage
of
his
examination
and
cross examination
he
has
given
so
many
contradictory
statements.
None
of
the
government
witnesses
has
corroborated
the
statement
of
each
other
in
conformity
with
the
Charge
sheet.
We
have
brought
the
attention
of
the
Inquiring
Authority
on
all
the
contradictions
during
their
examinations
and
cross examinations.
We
have
also
clearly
pointed
the
same
in
our
written
brief
of
arguments
with
related
Rulings/verdict
of
the
High
Court
and
quoted
the
concerning
rules
for
interest
of
fair
justice.

He
has
mentioned
in
his
Findings
that
Range
officer
is
"Proper
Channel"
to
file
or
submit
any
petition
or
application
to
the
DFO,
Manu.
He
has
also
opined
that
as
soon
as
receipt
of
any
application
addressed
to
the
DFO,
Manu
in
the
Range
office,
the
Range
Officer
must
enquire
into
the
contents
of
the
petition
and
submit
the
same
to
the
DFO,
Manu
with
enquiry
report
for
his
decision.
But
it
was
clearly
established
during
examination
of
the
witnesses
that
there
was
no
order
or
circular
in
this
regard
from
the
Forests
Department.
Until
and
unless
the
Range
Officer
is
asked
by
specific
order
to
enquire
into
any
application
of
anybody
else,
the
Range
Officer
has
no
power
to
take
any
action
on
that
application.

But
the
Inquiring
Authority
held
me
responsible
for
forwarding
the
application
of
Shri
Chandan
Acherjee
illegally
and
without
any
basis."

&


 
&   

 




 


    


 
 


  
 
 
9: ;/ 9;;:
8   
/;<


 

 




8
 

 

( 


:


!
-  .
 
/:=9
D 
 ( 


 


"

&


 

 
   




 

 
! & 
'(

#


8
( 
 
 
 
/= ;= 9;;:
  

 


"

&


 

 & 



 9- "

  
8 

 


"

&


 







 

 
   


8 






;- #
   
7
/

0

8




 
 ( 
(
&  


 
& 
 

  

8 
   
 ( 

 (

   



&


&

& 


  

&



 

 

"

 

&& 



 
 ( 
 
  

 


  

&( 


8 
C

 
 


 
8
(   

 & 




 
( 



 




  
 
  

(   


( 

 
E-/.
-

.
2
-

.


#


 (

! ( & 
-&.
 
/:@@
- #
   
(
 
 

 
 ( 


  

&
& 
8 &


 (



& 
 &




? 
&






   
8 

  




 & 
 



? 




& 

& 
8 &

 



& 


 


8 




 



 





 

 


&
 
 



? 



 
 




 



8
 &

 
& 


 
,-
,
" 
-' .
8

 

  
 

 


"

&


 
8 &
8
  





 
8 
& 


 
? 

(  


 



&




& 
   

!

1
A
/9

/0





 
& 
!
 
 


"

&


 
 

  
 
 


 






( 
 



 
#



 




 
 
,,-
*

 

,

8

  
 

  



 
 




Fit
is
true
that
the
prosecution
did
not
exhibit
some
listed
documents
in
Exbt.
S/3
and
it
is
also
true
as
pointed
out
by
the
Defence
about
the
relevancy
of
some
exhibited
items
but
it
cannot
be
said
that
all
such
items
as
pointed
out
by
the
defence
about
the
irrelevancy
of
the
documents
are
correct
and
beyond
the
relevant
fact'
8 
& 


  


 


& 
8 





 
8
 
&   




 

,- !

 
   


  



 

 & 
& 





&



  
& 
)

 
 
E; ;@ 9;;=







(






 &

   
* & 
- * .
& 





& 


 


&& 
* & 
- * .
7





 
& 

  



  & 


&
B  
8

  
,

 



 





 & 
 
8 

(
 
  
   &


  


&
 &

B  
!6/;
!6//
!6/9
-  


*.
&  

  & 
8


 




 
&
!

 
&  





& 


& 
8 &
8




 



 & 





&
 



(   

&



  &




,- C





  
&  





 

 



B


        


8  


B

 



8+
"It
is
now
well
settled
that
if
copies
of
relevant
and
material
documents
including
the
statement
of
witnesses
recorded
in
the
preliminary
enquiry
or
during
investigation
are
not
supplied
to
the
delinquent
officer
facing
the
enquiry
and
if
such
documents
are
relied
in
holding
the
charges
framed
against
the
officer,
the
enquiry
would
be
vitiated
for
violation
of
principles
of
natural
justice.
Similarly,
if
the
statement
of
witnesses
recorded
during
the
investigation
of
a
criminal
case
or
in
the
preliminary
enquiry
is
not
supplied
to
the
delinquent
officer,
that
would
amount
to
denial
of
opportunity
of
effective
cross
examination.

It
is
difficult
to
comprehend
exhaustively
the
facts
and
circumstances
which
may
lead
to
violation
of
principles
of
natural
justice
or
denial
of
reasonable
opportunity
of
defence.
This
question
must
be
determined
on
the
facts
and
circumstances
of
each
case.
While
considering
this
question
it
has
to
be
borne
in
mind
that
a
delinquent
officer
is
entitled
to
have
copies
of
material
and
relevant
documents
only
which
may
include
the
copy
of
statement
of
witnesses
recorded
during
the
investigation
or
preliminary
enquiry
or
the
copy
of
any
other
document
which
may
have
been
relied
in
support
of
the
charges.

If
a
document
has
no
bearing
on
the
charges
or
if
it
is
not
relied
by
the
enquiry
officer
to
support
the
charges,
or
if
such
document
or
material
was
not
necessary
for
the
cross examination
of
witnesses
during
the
enquiry,
the
officer
cannot
insist
upon
the
supply
of
copies
of
such
documents,
as
the
absence
of
copy
of
such
document
will
not
prejudice
the
delinquent
officer.
The
decision
of
the
question
whether
a
document
is
material
or
not
will
depend
upon
the
facts
and
circumstances
of
each
case."
,1- !


 



8 


& 



&

-GB !69.


")*
8 
  



& 


 

B
!

 
   


 



B

  ! 
"   #   $  %

&' (  (&)
8 



B

 



8+
"We
may
summarise
the
principles
emerging
from
the
above
discussion.
[These
are
by
no
means
intended
to
be
exhaustive
and
are
evolved
keeping
in
view
the
context
of
disciplinary
enquiries
and
orders
of
punishment
imposed
by
an
employer
upon
the
employee]:




(1)
An
order
passed
imposing
a
punishment
on
an
employee
consequent
upon
a
disciplinary/departmental
enquiry
in
violation
of
the
rules/regulations/statutory
provisions
governing
such
enquiries
should
not
be
set
aside
automatically.
The
Court
or
the
Tribunal
should
enquire
whether
(a)
the
provision
violated
is
of
a
substantive
nature
or
(b)
whether
it
is
procedural
in
character.
(2)
A
substantive
provision
has
normally
to
be
complied
with
as
explained
hereinbefore
and
the
theory
of
substantial
compliance
or
the
test
of
prejudice
would
not
be
applicable
in
such
a
case.
(3)
In
the
case
of
violation
of
a
procedural
provision,
the
position
is
this:
procedural
provisions
are
generally
meant
for
affording
a
reasonable
and
adequate
opportunity
to
the
delinquent
officer/employee.

They
are,
generally
speaking,
conceived
in
his
interest.
Violation
of
any
and
every
procedural
provision
cannot
be
said
to
automatically
vitiate
the
enquiry
held
or
order
passed.
Except
cases
falling
under
'no
notice',
'no
opportunity'
and
'no
hearing'
categories,
the
complaint
of
violation
of
procedural
provision
should
be
examined
from
the
point
of
view
of
prejudice,
viz.,
whether
such
violation
has
prejudiced
the
delinquent
officer/employee
in
defending
himself
properly
and
effectively.
If
it
is
found
that
he
has
been
so
prejudiced,
appropriate
orders
have
to
be
made
to
repair
and
remedy
the
prejudice,
including
setting
aside
the
enquiry
and/or
the
order
of
punishment.

If
no
prejudice
is
established
to
have
resulted
therefrom,
it
is
obvious,
no
interference
is
called
for.
In
this
connection,
it
may
be
remembered
that
there
may
be
certain
procedural
provisions
which
are
of
a
fundamental
character,
whose
violation
is
by
itself
proof
of
prejudice.The
Court
may
not
insist
on
proof
of
prejudice
in
such
cases.
As
explained
in
the
body
of
the
judgment,
take
a
case
where
there
is
a
provision
expressly
providing
that
after
the
evidence
of
the
employer/government
is
over,
the
employee
shall
be
given
an
opportunity
to
lead
defence
in
his
evidence,
and
in
a
given
case,
the
enquiry
officer
does
not
give
that
opportunity
inspite
of
the
delinquent
officer/employee
asking
for
it.
The
prejudice
is
self
evident.

No
proof
of
prejudice
as
such
need
be
called
for
in
such
a
case.
To
repeat,
the
test
is
one
of
prejudice,
i.e.,
whether
the
person
has
received
a
fair
hearing
considering
all
things.
Now,
this
very
aspect
can
also
be
looked
at
from
the
point
of
view
of
directory
and
mandatory
provisions,
if
one
is
so
inclined.
The
principle
stated
under
(4)
hereinbelow
is
only
another
way
of
looking
at
the
same
aspect
as
is
dealt
with
herein
and
not
a
different
or
distinct
principle.

(4)(a)
In
the
case
of
a
procedural
provision
which
is
not
of
a
mandatory
characters
the
complaint
of
violation
has
to
be
examined
from
the
standpoint
of
substantial
compliance.

Be
that
as
it
may
the
order
passed
in
violation
of
such
a
provision
can
be
set
aside
only
where
such
violation
has
occasioned
prejudice
to
the
delinquent
employee.
II."

 


,3- !

 

& 


&


 & 



B


* + !,#  ! -..$. /00&

 (1)/
 &  
 
/@


 
 
8 &




8+
"In
our
view,
non supply
of
documents
on
which
the
Enquiry
Officer
does
not
rely
during
the
course
of
enquiry
does
not
create
any
prejudice
to
the
delinquent.
It
is
only
those
documents,
which
are
relied
upon
by
the
Enquiry
Officer
to
arrive
at
his
conclusion,
the
non supply
of
which
would
cause
prejudice
being
violative
of
principles
of
natural
justice.
Even
then,
the
non supply
of
those
documents
prejudice
the
case
of
delinquent
officer
must
be
established
by
the
delinquent
officer.
It
is
well
settled
law
that
the
doctrine
of
principles
of
natural
justice
are
not
embodied
rules.
It
cannot
be
put
in
a
straitjacket
formula.
It
depends
upon
the
facts
and
circumstances
of
each
case.
To
sustain
the
allegation
of
violation
of
principles
of
natural
justice,
one
must
establish
that
prejudice
has
been
caused
to
him
for
non observance
of
principles
of
natural
justice."
,:-

&& 

 



& 


 
&


  
 


 

GB
!6/;
-  


&& 
 & .
8 &

 
   




 
#

&

 

 




&  
& 
8 &
8 




 



 


 

  
 



8 
&
 &

 

,9- # 
&




  



 
8 


 


 
 


*
!

 
"4/

 




& 

!

&

8
  

 
 & 
 
 
 & 
8 &
8
  


")*
,
"

( 

 &



 

& 
 
( 





& & 6  & 



 

&
 



& 
C

  

 


8 




 

 

 
C

  



 
 
 
 




"I
am
of
the
opinion
that

 


since
AO
(Dilip
Chakraborty)
was
not
a
mere
post
box
to
send
such
application
of
Sri
Chandan
Acharji
to
the
addressee
without
any
comments
and
filed
verifications
in
terms
of
the
application
where
valuable
property,
i.e.
a
good
quantity
of
stone
boulders
and
chips
are
involved.
It
is
the
admitted
fact
that
the
AO
Sri
Chakraborty
being
the
forwarding
authority
just
on
receipt
of
the
said
application
of
Sri
Acharji
without
any
enquiry
sent
the
said
application
to
the
DFO
and
it
is
also
admitted
that
Sri
Chakraborty
was
a
responsible
officer
like
Range
Officer
of
Forest
Range
and
as
such
he
cannot
forward
any
application
to
its
addressee
for
taking
necessary
action
without
verification
of
the
subject
matter
in
issue.
Therefore,
being
proper
channel
he
has
no
chance
to
evade
his
responsibility
by
mere
sending
such
application
though
the
said
application
of
Chandan
Acharji
was
addressed
to
the
DFO
through
proper
channel
(A.O.)."
,;- *


 &  


 &
 









  

 &&
&

 

(
  


  
, ( 

 


 
  
&  &


 



8 



& 



&



 
")*
8 


# 
&

 

 

 





 
8  




 

 
 




"Shri
Chakraborty
has
contended
that
he
was
not
given
copies
of
all
documents
mentioned
in
the
charge
sheet
and
that
the
Presenting
Officer
also
did
not
supply
some
additional
documents
required
by
the
Accused
Officer.
In
this
connection
Shri
Chakraborty
has
also
mentioned
a
verdict
of
Hon'ble
High
Court
of
Calcutta.
However,
a
later
judgment
[


    

 ]
of
the
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
holds
that
even
though
a
document
finds
mention
in
the
charge
sheet
but
it
is
not
relevant
to
the
charges
or
is
not
referred
to
or
relied
upon
by
the
inquiry
officer,
nor
is
it
necessary
for
the
purpose
of
cross





examination,
the
non supply
of
its
copy
does
not
violate
principles
of
natural
justice.
The
reasons
for
denial
to
give
copies
of
documents
have
been
noted
by
the
Inquiry
Authority
in
his
report
citing
irrelevance
of
documents
in
establishing
guilt.
Thus,
the
contention
of
Shri
Chakraborty
is
untenable."
,- D
 
 


  



8


&





 

  

(  &



  &



  




 
( 8

 


  

 &
C

? 

 
 

 
 


  

 

(  & 

?  

 ?&


(  &








(  &
8





   
8 

  

  
? 
#   
&
8


  
8 
  

&
 & 

  
? 
B& 
8 
&
  

 


(  &

8 
 

&  
( 
#
 

 


(  



8  

 
& 
  
& 
(
 ( 

&
&&  

  


  

 &


8 ( 
  
8 

  

 &


 


&



  &


   
(
 
(   



 




 
& & 
 
 

 

B 
&   
% 
 !  !   2 .  3 3"*%/0') 1 )'
- C


& 

   
&  
& 
8 






 

&
  



 
 

 
 

& 


 

  
 



#

 


 


& 
(


 & 

 
C
 




 &



 

& B  



 (
8   
B  








  
7
 



 
B  
  

 (

& 
,


 




B

 
8

8

 & 







& 

   


&
 
8 &
8 
   




 



 

,- C
( 8


(
 & 


8 


   
 
 ( 

  
7
 


&
























/