Md.Fakar Uddin v. State Of Tripura And 8 ORS.








 












 




 

!"


son
of
Masaullah,

resident
of
Khilpara,
P.O.
Khilpara,
P.S.
R.K.
Pur,
District
-
South
Tripura,
presently
posted
as
Information
&
Cultural
Officer
in
the
SDICA
Office,
Udaipur,
South
Tripura



















##



$% % !$
































&
$

'
(
'


)$
*% %$

 +( "
represented
by
the
Secretary$cum$
Commissioner,
Department
of
Information,
Cultural
Affairs
and
Tourism,
Government
of
Tripura,
Civil
Secretariat
Complex,
P.O.
Kunjaban,
P.S.
New
Capital
Complex,
District
-
West
Tripura





)$
 !, + -
*$,$% ."

to
the
Government
of
Tripura,
GA(AR)
Department,
Civil
Secretariat
Complex,
P.O.
Kunjaban,
P.S.
New
Capital
Complex,
District
-
West
Tripura

/

)$
0 $,%
"
Department
of
Information,
Cultural
Affairs
and
Tourism,
Government
of
Tripura,
Agartala,
P.S.
West
Agartala,
P.O.
Agartala,
District
-
West
Tripura


1

*)
2.
."
Sr.
Information
Officer


*)
) !

!
*

"
Sr.
Information
Officer


3
*)
4 '5 2 %
0$6"

Sr.
Information
Officer

[2] 7
*)
8
,) 2$$"

Sr.
Information
Officer

*)
0 6.$!

(
*$ ) 
0 %% "

Sr.
Information
Officer
9
*)
0$6 ' ')
 )"

Sr.
Information
Officer
Notice
to
be
served
upon
the
respondents
No.4
to
9
through
the
Director
of
Information,
Cultural
Affairs
and
Tourism,
Government
of
Tripura,
Agartala,
P.S.
West
Agartala,
P.O.
Agartala,
District
-
West
Tripura


#

$'+!

$!%'
4



 :4
 ;

*
*
  
For
the
petitioner













:
Mr.
D.C.
Roy,
Advocate
For
the
respondents
No.1,2
&
3

:
Mr.
S.
Chakraborty,
Addl.
G.A
For
the
respondents
No.
4
to
9


:
Mr.
A.
Lodh,
Advocate






Date
of
hearing
and












:

33
delivery
of
judgment

&
order

Whether
it
is
fit
for
reporting




:

?$'

 √
;

0
<
0
 



Heard
Mr.
D.C.
Roy,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
petitioner
as
well
as
Mr.
S.
Chakraborty,
learned
Addl.
G.A.
appearing
for
the
respondents
No.1
to
3
and
Mr.
A.
Lodh,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
respondents
No.4
to
9.
=>
Being
aggrieved
by
the
order
dated
16.08.2011
which
was
forwarded
by
the
memorandum
dated
26.09.2011,























































































































[3] Annexure$7
to
the
writ
petition,
the
petitioner
has
filed
this
petition
for
quashing
the
said
order
dated
16.08.2011.
By
the
order
dated
16.08.2011,
the
appellate
authority
interfered
with
the
order
dated
19.06.2006,
Annexure$2
to
the
writ
petition,
whereby
the
Disciplinary
Authority
awarded
the
petitioner
penalty
of
withholding
5(five)
increments
with
cumulative
effect
in
place
of
6(six)
increments
as
was
proposed
by
the
notice.
The
appellate
authority,
the
Principal
Secretary
to
the
Government
of
Tripura,
GA(AR)
Department
on
interference
has
passed
the
order,
which
reads


:
@)$$ '
"
%)$$$"
$ (,$
%)$
+$!

-%.

5 %))- !A

1(
!,$8$!%'
(!

$
(-$"


*

(-$'"
93
%
5 %))- !A

/%)$$
!,$8$!%'
5 %)(%
,(8(- % B$
$$,%

%$
$C 8 ! !A
--
%)$
$-$B !%
,(8$!%'"

$'

!

+$'!

-
)$  !A

!

6.
,!'

$ !A
A B %.

8 ',!

(,%

0
)$$ '
"
%)$$$"
 $
%) %
%)$
'('+$!' !
+$ 
8
3
%
/3
6$
%$ %$ '
!
(%.
!

 

!"

6$
+

) '
+ .
<
--5 !,$'
)$$
$+ %8$!% -
+,$$ !A'
!'%

'('+$!

$
$8+-.$$

8+' % !


8 2
+$!

-%.
 !

--.
$!

5 %)
%)$
8+' % !


8 !
+$!

-%."
%)$
'('+$!' !
')(- 6$
%$ %$

'
5)--.
(!2('%  $ !
%$8'


 14

!

%)$
$8+-.$$
,!,$!$
')(-
6$
+

(--
+ .

!

--5 !,$'

%)$
+$ 

'('+$!' !D

=8+) ' '
'(++- $ >
=/>
Mr.
D.C.
Roy,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
petitioner
has
submitted
that
having
regard
to
the
charges
levelled
against
the
petitioner
by
the
memorandum
dated
27.01.2006,
the
order
of
penalty
passed
by
the
disciplinary
authority
is
quite
disproportionate.
Even
the
order
of
the























































































































[4] appellate
authority
stands
disproportionate
to
the
misconduct.
He
has
urged
this
Court
to
interfere
with
the
impugned
order
and
exonerate
the
petitioner
from
any
punitive
action.

=1>
Both
Mr.
S.
Chakraborty,
Addl.
G.A.
and
Mr.
A.
Lodh,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
respondents
have
in
one
voice
submitted
that
this
Court
may
not
exercise
its
extraordinary
jurisdiction
by
way
of
interference
in
the
impugned
order
as
proportionality
of
penalty
falls
exclusively
in
the
domain
of
the
disciplinary
authority
or
the
appellate
authority.
Whenever
any
penalty
appears
to
the
court
disproportionate,
the
Court
may
not
reduce
or
fine$tune
it,
but
revert
the
question
for
consideration
of
the
disciplinary
authority
or
the
appellate
authority,
whoever
is
relevant
in
the
context.

=>
Having
regard
to
the
submissions
made
by
the
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
parties
and
in
order
to
appreciate
them
when
this
Court
scrutinized
the
records,
what
surprised
this
Court
most
is
that
neither
the
inquiry
report
which
held
the
petitioner
guilty
of
the
misconduct
nor
the
finding
of
the
disciplinary
authority
as
to
the
misconduct
has
been
challenged.
The
challenge
is
against
the
order
of
the
appellate
authority.
Even
the
memorandum
containing
the
article
of
charge
has
not
been
made
part
of
this
writ
petition,
enabling
this
Court
to
go
into
the
relevant
materials.























































































































[5] disciplinary
authority.
The
challenge
is
thus
confined
to
the
proportionality
of
the
penalty.
This
Court
after
examining
the
impugned
order
finds
that
adequate
leniency
has
been
shown
to
the
petitioner.
Even
though
3(three)
increments
have
been
withheld
but
those
are
so
withheld
without
cumulative
effect.
Even
the
period
of
suspension
of
the
petitioner
has
been
declared
to
be
as
on
duty
and
the
petitioner
will
get
all
the
financial
benefits
without
any
hold.
Only
for
three
years,
the
increment
of
the
petitioner
will
not
be
released.
Withholding
will
not
have
any
effect
of
the
postponement.
Having
regard
to
that
aspect
of
the
matter,
this
Court
does
not
find
any
merit
in
this
writ
petition.
Accordingly,
the
same
is
dismissed.
It
is
needless
to
say
that
for
purpose
of
consideration
of
promotion
of
the
petitioner
on
expiry
of
3(three)
years,
the
order
of
penalty
will
have
no
negative
impact.

There
shall
be
no
order
as
to
costs.



































;

0