Tripura High Court
Cont.Cas(C)/9/2026 of Court on its own Motion Vs Sri A.K.Bhattacharya on 16 April 2026
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA Cont.Cas(C) No.09 of 2026 Court on its own motion Versus Sri Anindya Kumar Bhattacharya .........Respondent(s) For Court on its own motion(s): None. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saktimoy Chakraborti, Advocate General, Mrs. Pinki Chakraborty, Advocate. HON’BLE THE
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Cont.Cas(C) No.09 of 2026
Court on its own motion
Versus
Sri Anindya Kumar Bhattacharya
.........Respondent(s)
For Court on its own motion(s): None.
For Respondent(s)
: Mr. Saktimoy Chakraborti, Advocate General,
Mrs. Pinki Chakraborty, Advocate.
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Order
16/04/2026
Heard learned Advocate General in the matter.
2. A suo motu Contempt Case was initiated after noticing that the respondent Sri Anindya Kumar Bhattacharya had, instead of going into only the aspect of proportionality of punishment as directed by this Court in the Order dt.02.04.2024 in WA No.108/2023, committed a patent error of law in interfering with a finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.835/2021 holding that Charge V was not proved.
3. The Division Bench had remitted the matter to him to pass a fresh order on the quantum of penalty noting that Charge IV alone stood proved, and so the said official could not have passed an order on 18.07.2024 holding that both Charges IV and V were proved, and imposing a major penalty of withholding three increments with cumulative effect along with additional punishment of recovery of loss amount of Rs.21,600/- from the pay of the petitioner in WP(C) No.677/2024.
4. The said official has now filed an affidavit admitting that he had committed a mistake, and that he had misconstrued the Order of the Division
Page 1 of 2
Bench passed on 02.04.2024 in WA No.108/2023 while passing the punishment order on 18.07.2024 against the petitioner.
5. He pleaded that the mistake was totally unintentional and bona fide, and he had no intention to violate and flout the solemn Order passed by this Court.
6. He has also tendered unconditional apology for the said mistake, and prayed for exoneration of the charge in the Contempt Case.
7. Since the officer in question had accepted his mistake, and has tendered unconditional apology, we discharge the Contempt Case.
8. It is accordingly closed.
(BISWAJIT PALIT, J) (M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ)
Pijush/ PIJUSH KANTI NAG Digitally signed by PIJUSH KANTI NAG Date: 2026.04.16 15:14:25 +05'30'
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…