AGARTALA: A primary school teacher convicted of a sexual offence against a girl child under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act has lost his legal battle to reclaim his government post, after the High Court of Tripura upheld his dismissal on Wednesday, March 11, 2026, finding that the Education Department followed due process in terminating his service and that his conviction, confirmed by the High Court itself in appeal, left no ground for judicial interference.
The petitioner, Haripada Saha, a resident of Kunjaban Colony, Agartala, had joined the state Education Department in 1989 as an assistant primary school teacher. His service career came under scrutiny after he was implicated in a criminal case during service.
He was convicted by the Special Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, in Special POCSO Case No. 32 of 2017, by a judgment dated April 12, 2019. Saha challenged the conviction before the High Court, but the appellate court confirmed the conviction in February 2020 in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2019, leaving no doubt about his culpability.
Following the conviction, the Education Department dismissed him from service by an order dated September 24, 2021. Saha challenged this dismissal before the High Court, and a single-judge bench, by order dated May 2, 2023, set aside the dismissal on the ground that it violated the principles of natural justice, specifically because no notice had been issued to him before the penalty was imposed as required under the proviso to Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The court gave the department liberty to take fresh action in accordance with law.
Also read | “Withdraw Your Candidate” — Congress Demands CPI(M) Back Down in Tripura
The state challenged that order before a division bench, which disposed of the appeal in May 2024, directing the department to take a fresh decision within twelve weeks. Accordingly, the Education Department issued a fresh show-cause notice to Saha in June 2024, called him for a personal hearing in August 2024, considered his reply, and thereafter passed a fresh order of dismissal on March 27, 2025. It was this second dismissal order that Saha challenged in the present writ petition.
Before Justice Biswajit Palit, Advocate Dulal Chandra Saha, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the department had not followed Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which prescribes the procedure for a regular departmental inquiry before imposition of a major penalty.
He relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including the landmark ruling in Shankar Dass versus Union of India, to argue that even where a conviction exists, the disciplinary power must be exercised fairly, justly, and reasonably, and that the nature and gravity of the offence must be weighed before imposing the extreme penalty of dismissal.
Additional Government Advocate Dipankar Sarma, appearing for the state respondents, countered that Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India provides a clear exception in cases where dismissal is on the ground of conduct that has led to a criminal conviction.
Also read | Tripura: Losing Faith in TIPRA Motha, 5 Senior Leaders Join BJP Ahead of ADC Polls
He submitted that under this provision, read with Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, there was no requirement to hold a separate departmental inquiry. He further pointed out that the department had, in any case, issued a show-cause notice, conducted a personal hearing, and considered Saha’s reply before passing the fresh dismissal order, fully satisfying the requirements of natural justice.
The court, after examining the rival contentions and the legal provisions, agreed with the state’s position. Justice Palit held that in a case of this nature, where a government servant has been convicted by a competent court and the conviction has been upheld in appeal, the disciplinary authority is fully empowered under Article 311(2) and Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules to pass an order of dismissal without initiating a fresh inquiry under Rule 14.
The court further noted that the department had, over and above what was strictly required, issued a show-cause notice and conducted a personal hearing, leaving no procedural infirmity in the process.
The court also took note of the fact that Saha’s conviction was under the POCSO Act, an offence committed against a girl child, and that the respondents had rightly considered the impact such conduct would have on the children of the school where he served as a teacher. In his reply to the show-cause notice, the court observed that Saha had failed to put forward any cogent ground to justify his retention in government service as a teacher after such a conviction.
Also read | Two Reang Women Rise Through Project TRIPTI in Tripura
Referring to a string of Supreme Court decisions, including Union of India versus Ramesh Kumar, Union of India versus V.K. Bhaskar, and Prahlad Raut versus All India Institute of Medical Sciences, the court reaffirmed that a disciplinary authority is not required to await the outcome of any appeal before acting on a conviction, and that suspension of a sentence by an appellate court does not obliterate the conviction or neutralize a dismissal order based on it.
Finding no illegality, irregularity, or impropriety in the proceedings leading to the dismissal order dated March 27, 2025, Justice Palit rejected the writ petition on contest as devoid of merit. No order was passed as to costs.
