Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

WP(C) No. 160 of 2013. Case: Manabendra Chakraborty Vs The State of Tripura and Ors.. Tripura High Court

Document Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberWP(C) No. 160 of 2013
Party NameManabendra Chakraborty Vs The State of Tripura and Ors.
CounselFor Appellant: P. Roy Barman, Advocate and For Respondents: A.S. Lodh, Addl. G.A.
JudgesS.C. Das, J.
IssueService Law
Judgement DateJanuary 25, 2017
CourtTripura High Court

Judgment:

S.C. Das, J., (At Agartala)

  1. Heard learned counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman for the petitioner and learned Addl. G.A., Ms. A.S. Lodh for the State-respondents.

  2. The petitioner was serving as an assistant teacher of Kamalghat Class-XII School under the Directorate of School Education, Government of Tripura and he was transferred to Halahali Class-XII school and was released from Kamalghat Class-XII school w.e.f. the afternoon of 01.03.1994. After release he did not join Halahali Class-XII school. Thereafter by a memo dated 24.09.2004 a disciplinary proceeding was drawn up against him with the charges of his not joining to his place of posting as well as for remaining on un-authorized absence. On receipt of the memorandum of disciplinary proceeding he submitted a reply in writing to the Director of School Education and also prayed for personal hearing and, accordingly, he was heard by the Director of School Education and thereafter by order dated 22.12.2004 the Director of School Education closed the disciplinary proceeding with the observation:-

    "Having considered so, I order that the entire absence period is to be regularised by applying "DIES-NON" without any break of service and his joining report should be accepted accordingly.

    Having ordered so, I think this will meet the ends of justice. The proposed proceeding is also hereby dropped."

  3. The petitioner thereafter applied for voluntary retirement in the year 2005 by making an application dated 03.02.2005 but that was not entertained by the Director of School Education on the ground that the petitioner did not complete 20 years of continuous service as required under rule 48A of C.C.S Pension Rules 1972 rules and, therefore, his prayer for voluntary retirement was rejected.

  4. The petitioner approached the then Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench by fling a writ petition being WP(C) No. 550 of 2010 and that writ petition was dismissed by order dated 15.03.2011. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation dated 04.08.2011 seeking a review of the order dated 22.12.2004. The Director of School Education by a memorandum dated 03.09.2011 (Annexure -P/14 to the writ petition) observed that the petitioner should approach the appellate authority. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the appellate authority by making a representation (Annexure-P/15 to the writ petition) dated 30.09.2011 and the appellate authority dismissed the representation of the petitioner by memo dated...

To continue reading

Request your trial