Page - 1 of 5


                    HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                          AGARTALA

                          W.A. No.30/2012

Sri Manash Mukharjee, S/o Late Santosh Kumar Mukherjee,
resident of Pyari Babur Bagan, West Joynagar, Agartala,
P.O. Agartala, PS - West Agartala, District - West Tripura,
PIN - 799001.
                                                 ---- Appellant(s).

                             Versus

1. The State of Tripura to be represented by the Chief Secretary
   to the Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Complex, P.O.
   Kunjaban, PS -West Agartala, Dist. - West Tripura, Pin -
   799006.

2. The Secretary-in-charge of the Science, Technology and
   Environment Department of the Government of Tripura, New
   Secretariat Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, PS - East Agartala, Dist.
   - West Tripura, Pin - 799006.

3. The Tripura State Pollution Control Board, Kunjaban, P.O -
   Kunjaban, PS - East Agartala, District - West Tripura, Pin -
   799 006.

4. The Member-Secretary, Tripura State Pollution Control Board,
   Kunjaban, P.O - Kunjaban, P.S - East Agartala, Dist. - West
   Tripura, Pin - 799006.

5. The Inquiring Authority (Special Commissioner for
   Departmental Inquiries), Government of Tripura, Gorkhabasti,
   P.O. Kunjaban, PS - East Agartala, Dist. - West Tripura, PIN -
   799006.

6. Dr. Mihir Kumar Das, State Public Information Officer and
   Scientist -C, Tripura State Pollution Control Board,
   Gorkhabasti P.O - Kunjaban, P.S - East Agartala, Dist. - West
   Tripura, Pin - 799006.
                                              ---- Respondent(s).

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sankar Deb, Sr. Advocate, Mr. S C Das, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. D Sharma, Addl. Govt. Advocate, Mr. P Roy Barman, Advocate, Mr. S Bhattacharjee, Advocate.

Page - 2 of 5 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH Judgment 12/6/2018 Instant writ appeal is directed against judgment & order dt.30th March, 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.140/2012.

2. The appellant at the relevant point of time was serving as Executive Engineer in the Tripura State Pollution Control Board who at present is working as Member-Secretary of the Board. For some alleged delinquency being committed by him, in discharge of his official duties, departmental proceedings were initiated against him and at one point of time, he was placed under suspension in exercise of R.10(2) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965.

3. The appellant-petitioner earlier challenged the order of suspension in WP(C) No.161/2011 before the ld. Single Judge of this Court and his contention was that the delinquent placed under suspension, beyond the period of 90 days has to be reviewed by a review committee to be constituted by the Authority but as there was no review of the order of suspension as envisaged under Rule 10(6) & (7) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 the suspension in consequence stands automatically revoked and taking note of sub-rule (6) & (7) of Rule 10, CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 the order of suspension came to be revoked vide judgment dt.22.12.2011.

Page - 3 of 5

4. Thereafter the appellant again approach this Court by filing WP(C) No.140/2012 assailing the disciplinary proceedings initiated under the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, as adopted by the Board and that was summarily rejected vide judgment impugned dt.30th March, 2012.

5. What reveals to this Court is that after taking note of the disciplinary Rules 1965 order of his suspension was revoked and he has now raised objection as a defence that the Rules, 1965 are not applicable for the reason that it has not so far been approved by the Government, which is mandatory as per Sec.12(3A) of the Water(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, in absence thereof any further order being passed for the alleged delinquency by the disciplinary authority, on conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, is wholly without any authority and competence needs to be interfered by this Court.

6. The learned Single Judge after taking note of the submissions made observed that at one stage the petitioner indeed invoked the provisions of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 for revocation of the order of suspension and since the disciplinary enquiry initiated against him under the same set of Rules 1965 is not to his convenience has taken a summersault to question the procedure which has been adopted by the respondent in conducting a disciplinary enquiry for the misconduct which he had committed in discharge of his official duties under the Rules 1965 which may not come to his rescue at this belated stage.

Page - 4 of 5

7. We also find no substance to take a contrary view than the view taken by the ld. Single Judge and further observe that Rules of 1965 lays down a procedure for holding disciplinary action against an employee who commits misconduct in discharge of his official duties and for fairness in action, private management can also adopt the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 for the purpose of conducting disciplinary action against their employees for which no separate approval from the government or any other agency is required.

8. In the instant case, the disciplinary action was initiated against the appellant-petitioner under the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, which were adopted only for the purpose of affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the delinquent at all the stages while conducting disciplinary enquiry against him and even if we find any substance in the submission made by the petitioner's counsel, at least, it can be an administrative instructions which can always be adopted by the authority in conducting disciplinary action against the employee who commits any misconduct in discharge of official duties and as long as the action initiated and conducted by the authority is in compliance with the principles of natural justice and in terms of the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1965, we find no error in the decision making process adopted by the respondents may call for interference.

9. After having heard counsel for the appellant, we find no error in the order passed by the ld. Single Judge which may call Page - 5 of 5 for our interference. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed. No costs.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Certificate :- All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order. Sukhendu