Tripura: The Tripura High Court recently upheld an order discharging a probationary judicial officer for approaching a Union Minister for transfer recommendation and making a false statement in connection with his overstay of leave [Sri Koushik Karmakar vs State Of Tripura].
A division bench of Justices T Amarnath Goud and B Patil rejected petitioner Koushik Karmakar’s claim that he had not approached the Minister of State for Social Justice and Empowerment for recommending his transfer.
From the records, the Court found that Karmakar in May 2022 had made a prayer before the Registrar General of the High Court for his transfer to any station near his residence at Agartala on the ground of ill health of his parent.
Soon after the full court turned down Karmakar’s request, the High Court received a letter from the Union Minister requesting consideration of his transfer, the Court noted.
“After proper perusal of the conduct of the petitioner in approaching before the Registry of this Court for his transfer and thereafter issuance of a D.O. letter by a Hon’ble Minster of State recommending his transfer inspires high suspicious in the mind of this Court that the D.O. letter of Hon’ble Minister of State was issued without the petitioner approaching the Hon’ble Minister and the same was ‘Act of God’,” the bench said.
The Court also rejected the petitioner’s assertion that someone to defame him had played a “game behind the back” and called the submission hypothetical.
The Court found the conduct of the petitioner unbecoming of a judicial officer and concluded that he has not been able to prove his innocence on this point.
Karmakar was appointed in November 2020 as Grade-III Judicial Officer. In November 2022, a Full Court of the High Court recommended his discharge from service.
The State government accepted the recommendation in December 2022. Karmakar challenged the decision last year.
The second allegation against Karmakar was that he had overstayed his leave for two days in 2022 and was found unavailable on several visits of the District and Sessions Judge, Khowai.
During his period of leave between March 2 and 3 in 2022, Karmakar had fallen seriously ill and only joined duty on March 7, 2022, as per his response to the show cause notice issued earlier by the High Court administration.
He claimed to have communicated about it to the District and Sessions Judge on WhatsApp but she denied it
The Court further took note that petitioner’s explanation for his absence during the visit of District Judge Jhowai to his court and chamber, was that he had gone to his rented accommodation to attend nature’s call as there was no lavatory attached to his chamber.
Karmakar had said that the Bench Clerk had not informed him about such a visit.
Considering the circumstances, the Court concluded that the petitioner had made a false statement regarding the issue of his overstay of leave.
“Further, it is seen from the above observation that the petitioner has had a series of excuses without proper reasoning on various occasions, which creates doubt in the mind of this Court on the reasoning of the excuses for not remaining present in his Court/Chamber,” it added.
On the argument that Karmakar was discharged without inquiry, the Court noted that he was only a probationer at that time.
In this context, it referred to Rule 15(6) of the Judicial Service Rules, 2003 which states that no disciplinary enquiry shall be necessary for discharge of a probationer.
“As such, inquiry in the case of the petitioner is not called for… Further, this Court is of the view that the discharge order of the petitioner is order simplicater and not punitive in nature,” it said
The Court also considered the petitioner’s argument that the observation given by the full court that the petitioner’s “demeanour is unbecoming of a judicial officer and his integrity is also doubtful” was hampering his future employment.
It opined that the conduct of the petitioner was clearly unbecoming of a judicial officer and doubtful.
However, it decided to take a lenient view keeping in mind the petitioner’s career.
It removed the part about Karmakar’s integrity being doubtful and changed the observation to “the conduct of the petitioner is unbecoming of Judicial Officer and doubtful”.
“With the above modification, the impugned notification issued for discharging the petitioner from service is affirmed and upheld,” ordered the Court.
Koushik Karmakar appeared in person along with advocates CS Sinha and DC Saha
Advocate General SS Dey, Senior Advocate BN Majumder, Advocate B Paul and Advocate A Chakraborty represented the respondents
