K SAKTHIVEL Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PRISON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, K.Sakthivel, who was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 21.05.1990 at Salem Central Prison, joined the jail service. Subsequently, he was transferred to Kovai Central Prison in the year 1994. While he was serving at Kovai Central Prison, on 19.05.2003, at about 16.50 hours, at the time of returning from duty he was searched by the Jailer at his office and the following contraband articles were recovered by him.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Enquiry Officer wrongly conducted the enquiry by violating the principles of natural justice, because the Enquiry Officer first examined P.W.1, Mr.Anandan (Jailer), on 25.07.2003. Thereafter, on the same day, he has examined the defence witness and cross examined the petitioner. Once again, he has examined one Mr.Loganathan, P.W.2 on 29.07.2003. The above said procedure is contrary to the procedure of conducting disciplinary proceedings and against the principles of natural justice. As per the enquiry procedure, the Enquiry Officer ought to have examined the prosecution witness namely, departmental witness in the first instance in the presence of the charged employee. Secondly, the Department should have given an opportunity to the delinquent to cross examine the said witness and then the delinquent should have been asked as to whether he wanted to give any explanation about the evidence let in against him by the other side. Since these procedures were not followed, it was contended that the principles of natural justice have been violated and on that basis prayed for setting aside the impugned order of compulsory retirement from service.

(3.) Rebutting the above said submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner, while serving as a Secondary Grade Teacher at Coimbatore Central Prison, he was returning from duty on 19.05.2003 at 16.50 hours and he was searched by the Jailer at his office. As a result of the search made by the Jailer, 12 contraband articles were seized. Since the possession of contraband articles is a clear evidence of his illegal relationship with the prisoners inside the jail, which is also violation of Tamil Nadu Prison Manual Volume II and Rule Nos.146, 147 and 148 and Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1973, a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (D&A) Rules, dated 30.05.2003 was issued calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation therefor. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his explanation, but, since the explanations offered by the petitioner were not satisfactory, an enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer, after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner as well as to the respondents, submitted his enquiry report finding him guilty of all the charges levelled against him. After the submission of the enquiry report, 2nd show cause notice was issued calling for his explanation as to why suitable action should not be taken against the petitioner. After submission of the explanation to the 2nd show cause notice, the disciplinary authority, having not been satisfied with the explanation offered, by viewing seriously the commission of various misconducts which are violative of Rule Nos.146, 147 and 148 of Tamil Nadu Prison Manual Volume II and also Tamil Nadu Civil Services Rules thought it fit to pass the impugned order of compulsory retirement. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order of compulsory retirement, preferred an appeal unsuccessfully and as against that, Review was filed which was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the above said order, the present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.