PRADIP SHIL ALIAS PRADIP KUMAR SHIL Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as a 'Primary Teacher'. According to the respondents, he had not reported for duty for the period between 22nd July, 2009 to 26th August, 2010. Case of the petitioner, however, is that the school Headmaster had prevented him from joining duty and signing attendance register. Be that as it may, a departmental charge sheet came to be issued against the petitioner for said alleged unauthorized absence on 26th June, 2015. The petitioner filed reply to the said charge sheet denying the allegations under his communication dated 4th July, 2015. One of the grounds taken by the petitioner in the said reply was that he was prevented from attending the duty and the allegation that he was unauthorizedly absent was thus false.

(2.) The enquiry remained dormant for a long time. Eventually, the Director of Elementary Education, Tripura, passed impugned order dated 1st February, 2019 treating the said period between 22nd July, 2009 to 26th August, 2010 as 'Dies Non' for all purposes without forfeiture of his past service but which would have effect on his pension, increment and leave etc. Strangely, this order relies on an enquiry report dated 17th August, 2011.

(3.) The steps taken by the authorities are opposed to settled principles of law. Having initiated a major penalty charge sheet the impugned order was passed without recording any evidence, examining witnesses, drawing enquiry report and supplying report to the delinquent calling upon his response. Even if it is taken that the impugned order does not amount to imposition of any major penalty and that therefore, the procedure required for such purpose was not necessary, the order suffers from multiple legal infirmities. Firstly, it refers to and relies upon enquiry report dated 17th August, 2011 which predates the issuance of charge sheet and copy of which was never supplied to the petitioner. Thus the authority has taken into consideration material behind the back of the petitioner. Further, the petitioner's explanation for his absence contained in his representation dated 4th July, 2015 has not been dealt with. Thus the defence of the petitioner that he had not absented but was prevented from discharging his duties remains undecided.