R AZHAGESAN Vs. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this writ petition is to the order dated 21-1-2003 passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') by which the Tribunal has dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner herein and upheld the order passed by the first respondent dismissing the petitioner from service.

(2.) FACTS, in brief, are as follows: The petitioner, a Warden in the Prison Service, was served with a charge memo dated 29-3-2000 for certain alleged misconducts. In the departmental enquiry, all the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. The first respondent by his order dated 2-11-2000 dismissed the petitioner from service. Challenging the order of dismissal, the petitioner filed an original application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the original application holding that the dismissal of the petitioner from service was legal and proper.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the punishment of dismissal from service is arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice apart from infringement of the rights conferred under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submitted that the second respondent was through out exhibiting inimical attitude towards the petitioners. The second respondent has framed so many false charges against the petitioner and issued orders without conducting any proper enquiry. The second respondent, in his capacity as the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons-first respondent, issued the impugned charge memo dated 29-3-2000. The first respondent appointed the Superintendent of Central Prison, Palayamkottai as enquiry officer. In the enquiry, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and he was not allowed to peruse the documents relied on by the enquiry officer. No witnesses have been examined in the enquiry though the petitioner had furnished the list of witnesses to be examined. Learned counsel further submitted that even assuming that petitioner had made the alleged complaints against the first respondent, the charged levelled against the petitioner were true, since the alleged allegations are with respect to the conduct and functioning of the first respondent, the initiation of the departmental enquiry against the petitioner should have been by the officer higher in rank to the first respondent, but in the present case the first respondent himself had taken the task of initiating the departmental enquiry and appointed the enquiry officer of his choice, who acted as per the directions of the first respondent. By this, the first respondent himself has acted as Judge in his own cause. Learned counsel submitted that the proper course would have been that the matter should have been referred to the Inspector General of Prisons for further action against the petitioner. It was further submitted that even though the petitioner had sought for eighteen documents inclusive of the report given by the Forensic Expert and had also sought to examine nine witnesses including the Forensic Expert, the enquiry officer deliberately denied those documents and also refused to summon the Forensic Expert for cross-examination. The copy of the report submitted by the Forensic Expert was not provided to the petitioner. The punishment of dismissal from service is shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. In short, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that whole enquiry was tainted with bias and mala fide attitude of the second respondent and that there was no enquiry at all in the eye of law.