T. RAJAKUMAR Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL PRISONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records of the first Respondent in his proceedings No.12882/PO.4/2003 dtd. 26/5/2004 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the first Respondent to treat the period of absence as duty in all aspects.

(2.) The facts of the case in nutshell is as under: The Petitioner was appointed as a Selection Grade Assistant in Coimbatore Central Prison and was dealing with R2 Sec. and the same was assigned with effect from 7/3/2003. It was clarified by the 1st Respondent on 5/5/2003 that R1 Assistant and R5 Junior Assistant should deal the affairs of high security prisoners and R2 Assistant, R3, R4 and R6 Junior Assistants should deal with the affairs of all prisoners except high security prisoners. The charges were framed by the 1st Respondent on the Petitioner and the charge memo dtd. 10/6/2003 under Rule 17(b) was issued to the Petitioner. The 4th charge was already dropped by the 1st Respondent with warning on 11/4/2003 in his proceedings No.7289/PO1/03, the 1st Respondent already issued the 1st charge under Rule 17(a) in proceedings No.PO4/9236/2003 dtd. 2/5/2003, the 2nd charge was already issued under Rule 17(a) by the 1st Respondent in proceedings No.PO4/9237/2003 dtd. 7/5/2003. The 1st Respondent in his proceedings No.12882/PO4/2003 cancelled the 17(a) charges issued on 2/5/2003 & 7/5/2003. Thereafter, the Petitioner requested the 1st Respondent on 8/8/2003 and 16/12/2003 to alter the charges from 17(b) to 17(a) and to furnish the connected documents, but the 1st Respondent in his proceedings dtd. 12/8/2003 and 17/12/2003, rejected the request to alter the charges and furnished the documents only to 4 charges. Thereafter, Mr.Ramani who was connected with charges 3, 4 & 8 was appointed as Enquiry Officer on 22/10/2003. Thereafter, the enquiry was fixed on 3/1/2004. The Petitioner appeared for enquiry before the Enquiry Officer and objected his enquiry, since he should be examined as one of the witnesses for the charges 3, 4 & 8 on behalf of the Petitioner. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 30/3/2004 and the Petitioner was served with show cause notice by enclosing the enquiry report on 11/4/2004. The Petitioner requested time for one month to submit the written explanation, since he returned from medical leave and to go through the records. But without considering the request, without extending the time as requested by the Petitioner and without receiving written explanation, the 1st Respondent passed an order of major punishment of compulsory retirement on 26/5/2004. Aggrieved by the order of the 1st Respondent, the Petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that charges under Rule 17(a) were changed to charges under Rule 17(b) and there is no rule to combine/convert/change the charges. Learned counsel drew attention of this Court to the proceedings of the 1st Respondent dtd. 11/2/2004, in which it is mentioned that even though it was decided to conduct enquiry on 29/1/2004, the Petitioner prevented the same by sending request to the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Coimbatore Range to change the Enquiry Officer. The charge memo under Rule17(a) was issued to the Petitioner on 7/5/2003 and the charge memo under Rule17(b) was issued on 10/6/2003. The charges 3, 4, 5 and 7 are new charges.