HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA WA NO.2 OF 2025 The State of Tripura Vs. Surasen Tripura. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT Present: For the Appellant(s) : Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. G.A. For the Respondent(s) : None. 21.01.2025 Order This present appeal has been preferred against the impugned Judgment and Order (Oral) dated 06.09.2024, passed in WP(C) No.548 of 2023 by the learned Single Judge. 2. The brief facts of this case are that the petitioner/respondent herein, while performing his duties as the Officer-in-Charge of the Munguiakami Police Station, detained a suspected vehicle carrying contraband narcotic goods. The suspected vehicle was later brought to the police station, where an artificially built secret cabin was opened in the presence of the SDPO, Teliamura, and contraband articles were found. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued against the petitioner/respondent, and disciplinary proceedings were initiated. Finally, the disciplinary authority held the petitioner guilty of committing misconduct and imposed the penalty of 'withholding of one-time scale increment of pay without cumulative effect.' 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner/respondent preferred a writ petition, and the learned writ court passed the impugned Judgment & Order dated 06.09.2024, setting aside the penalty order passed by the disciplinary authority. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the State-respondent, submits that the Officer-in-Charge did not inform the SDPO about the seizure of the vehicle with contraband items. The SDPO came to know about the seizure in the evening, whereas the vehicle was seized in the morning. 5. Heard on merit and perused the evidence on record. 6. It is apparent from the record that the Sub- Divisional Police Officer (SDPO) was present when the contraband items were seized. However, during his cross- examination, the SDPO stated that he only learned about the vehicle being detained at the police station through his source. This creates some confusion about the actual sequence of events and raises questions about the accuracy of his statements. Page 3 of 3 7. This Court believes that such disputes over facts, especially those related to the evidence and the officer's role, cannot be properly examined in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The purpose of Article 226 is mainly to protect fundamental rights and address legal violations, not to resolve complicated factual disputes that require detailed investigation and examination of evidence. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that disputed questions of fact leading to the evidentiary value cannot be gone into in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, this present writ petition stands dismissed. 8. As a sequel, any stay, if granted, stands vacated. Pending application(s), if any, also stand closed. B. PALIT, J T. AMARNATH GOUD, J suhanjit RAJKUMAR SUHANJIT SINGHA Digitally signed by RAJKUMAR SUHANJIT SINGHA Date: 2025.01.24 12:36:24 +05'30'