TRIPURA HIGH COURT : In a recent ruling in Sri Koushik Karmakar v. State of Tripura, the Tripura High Court affirmed an order dismissing a probationary judicial officer for asking a Union Minister for a transfer recommendation and making a false statement in connection with his leave overstay.
Petitioner Koushik Karmakar contended that he had not asked the Minister of State for Social Justice and Empowerment to suggest his transfer, but his argument was dismissed by a split bench comprising Justices T Amarnath Goud and B Patil.
Based on the available records, the Court discovered that Karmakar had prayed in May 2022 before the Registrar General of the High Court to be transferred to a station close to his Agartala domicile due to his parent’s illness.
The petitioner claimed that someone had engaged in a “game behind his back” to discredit him, but the court dismissed this claim as speculative.The Court determined that the petitioner had not demonstrated his innocence on this issue and deemed his actions to be unworthy of a judicial officer.
As per the facts In November 2020, Karmakar was appointed as a Grade-III Judicial Officer. A Full Court of the High Court recommended his release from service in November 2022. In December 2022, the State government approved the recommendation. Karmakar contested the ruling the previous year.
The second accusation made against Karmakar was that he had taken an excessive amount of time off in 2022—two days—and had repeatedly failed to show up for appointments with District and Sessions Judge Khowai.Karmakar only reported back to work on March 7, 2022, after becoming gravely unwell between March 2 and 3, 2022, in response to the High Court administration’s previous show-cause notice.
She refuted his assertion that he discussed it with the District and Sessions Judge over WhatsApp.
The Court also noted that the petitioner had stated that he had gone to his rented apartment to answer to nature’s call because his chamber lacked a restroom during District Judge Jhowai’s visit to his court and chamber. Karmakar has stated that he was not notified of this visit by the Bench Clerk.
Regarding the claim that Karmakar was let go without being questioned, the Court pointed out that he was still a probationer at the time.
Rule 15(6) of the Judicial Service Rules, 2003, which specifies that a probationer’s discharge does not require a disciplinary investigation, was cited in this context.
The petitioner argued to the court that his future employment was being hampered by the whole court’s assessment that his “demeanor is unbecoming of a judicial officer and his integrity is also doubtful.”
It expressed the opinion that the petitioner’s actions were dubious and obviously unworthy of a judicial officer.It did, however, choose to adopt a liberal stance in light of the petitioner’s professional background.
The statement that Karmakar’s honesty was questionable was deleted, and the new statement read, “The petitioner’s conduct is doubtful and unbecoming of a judicial officer.”
Koushik Karmakar personally made an appearance, accompanied by attorneys CS Sinha and DC Saha.
Advocate B Paul, Advocate General SS Dey, Senior Advocate BN Majumder, and Advocate The responders were symbolized by a Chakraborty.
CASE NAME – Sri Koushik Karmakar v. State of Tripura
NAME – KARUBAKI MOHANTY , COURSE – B.A.LLB (HONS), SOA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF LAW, BHUBANESWAR, INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments