The Tripura High Court dismissed the writ appeal as the Petitioner had not surrendered her caste certificate when her community was declared non-tribal. A division bench comprising Hon’ble Chief Justice (Acting) and Justice Arindam Lodh held that the term “any event” mentioned under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules can be considered in the broader ambit of "cause of action". Therefore, the departmental proceeding started in 2020 was well within the stipulated period of four years given under the statute.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the Education Department, Government of Tripura, and subsequently got promoted to the post of Head Clerk. In 2004, a Show Cause Notice was issued to her alleging that she belonged to the Laskar community and had obtained an ST certificate by misrepresentation. The SLSC canceled the Petitioner’s ST certificate by the order dated 07.11.2005 against which she preferred the writ petition, which was disposed of, remanding the proceedings to SLSC for fresh disposal. On 31.05.2016, SLSC passed a fresh order to cancel the Petitioner’s ST certificate.
The Secretary, Government of Tripura, had also issued the impugned memorandum dated 12.06.2020, which was challenged by the Petitioner by way of a writ petition before the learned single judge on the ground that the allegations relate to an incident that took place 4 years before the date of institution of the departmental proceedings. Therefore, in terms of Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, the disciplinary authority does not have jurisdiction to initiate the departmental proceedings. However, the writ was dismissed by judgment dated 12.08.2021 as no reason was found to consider the impugned memorandum as illegal and arbitrary. The Petitioner filed the present writ appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.237 of 2021.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the allegations contained in the articles of charge referred to the promotion, which took place on 20.01.1994 and the order of cancellation of the ST certificate by the SLSC on 07.11.2005. Thus all events which the department intends to rely upon in the charge sheet had taken place several decades before the issuance of the charge sheet. Therefore, in terms of Rule 9(2) of CCS (Pension) Rules, no inquiry against the retired employee would be instituted in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned Counsel for the Respondent contended that the Appellant was retired from service on superannuation w.e.f. 30.09.2016 only when the cause of action started and the departmental proceedings against the Petitioner was instituted on 12.06.2020. He further contended that the period of four years must be reckoned from the date of her retirement from which it can be ascertained that the departmental inquiry was initiated well within the period of 4 years.
Observation of the Court:
This Court referred Section 8 of the Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Reservation Act, 1991 (‘the SC/ST Act’), which imposes punishment on any person who falsely claims themselves to be a member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. In terms of this section, this Court noted that the Petitioner being an educated person, cannot be shed away from her legitimate duty to surrender her certificate when the notification declared her caste as non-tribal. She had taken the benefit that she was not entitled to take, and therefore, failed to approach the Court with clean hands.
In terms of Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, this Court held that the term "any event" used in this rule can be considered in the broader ambit of "cause of action". The Court denied accepting the contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the proceedings failed to be instituted within the 4 years as the Petitioner retired on 30.09.2016 and the disciplinary proceedings was initiated on 12.06.2020, meaning thereby the institution of the proceedings was well within four years as required by the statue.
The decision of the Court:
The Tripura High Court dismissed the present writ appeal and confirmed the impugned judgment and order dated 12.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.237 of 2021.
Case Title: Smti. Sabita Debbarma vs State of Tripura and others
Coram: Hon’ble Chief Justice (Acting) and Justice Arindam Lodh
Case no.: W.A. No.227/2021
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. P. Roy Barman
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Mangal Debbarma
Read Judgment ;
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments