Click the Play button to listen to article

The Tripura High Court has dismissed the State Government's appeal against an order quashing its decision to initiate a further inquiry against a government employee who had been exonerated of all charges in the original departmental inquiry.

The Division Bench held that the disciplinary authority could not bypass the procedure prescribed under Rule 15(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, or devise its own procedure contrary to an earlier binding order of the High Court.

Division Bench of Chief Justice Mr. M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice S.Datta Purkayastha set aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority dt.28.07.2021 on the ground of non-compliance with Rule 15(2) of the Rules, how the appellants could have invoked in the impugned order dt.02.03.2024, sub-Rule (1) of Rule 15 of the same Rules?

Background of the Case

The respondent, Goutam Choudhury, was exonerated of all charges in a departmental inquiry on May 10, 2021. However, the disciplinary authority ordered a fresh inquiry, prompting him to challenge the decision before the Tripura High Court.

On December 11, 2023, the High Court set aside the order for non-compliance with Rule 15(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Subsequently, the authorities ordered further inquiry under Rule 15(1) on March 2, 2024.

A Single Judge quashed this order on September 26, 2025, following which the State Government filed the present appeal before the Division Bench.

The Tripura High Court held that the disciplinary authority could not bypass Rule 15(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, by invoking Rule 15(1) to order further inquiry, particularly after an earlier High Court order had attained finality.

The Division Bench dismissed the State's appeal and directed the disciplinary authority to communicate its tentative reasons for disagreement with the inquiry report within four weeks.

The respondent was granted a further four weeks to submit objections, after which a final order must be passed in accordance with law.

Date of Decision: 29.09.2026

Tags: