V BALAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative tribunal, Chennai, dated 12. 06. 2002 made in O. A. No. 2971 of 2002, the applicant therein has come forward with this writ petition, seeking an order of certiorari to call for the records and quash the impugned order and also for necessary direction to reinstate him in service with all monetary benefits.

(2.) IT has been admitted that the petitioner herein was initially appointed as Gr. II Warder in Central Prison, vellore in the Jail Department, during 1972 and he was promoted as Gr. I Warder in the year 1983. While he was working as Gr. I Warder in the Central Prison, Vellore, during the intervening night of 15/16. 11. 1991, 8 prisoners, who were all life convicts, lodged in the Central Prison, vellore, in the sixth block had escaped from the prison. In connection with the jail break, the petitioner herein and other officials, responsible for the occurrence were dealt with under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Danda) Rules. As per the charge memo, dated 21. 03. 1992, the petitioner was accused of negligence and dereliction of duty. It is not in dispute that during the aforesaid night hours, when the life convicts escaped from the prison, the petitioner was on para duty from midnight 12. 00 to early morning 3. 00 a. m. Subsequently, enquiry was held by the deputy Inspector General of prison, Madurai, witnesses were examined and the enquiry officer concluded his finding that the charge framed against the petitioner has been proved.

(3.) THE Second respondent, accepting the findings given by the enquiry officer, passed an order of dismissal against the petitioner and few other similarly placed delinquent officials, after providing opportunity to raise their defence. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred O. A. No. 4022 of 1993 before the Tamil Nadu administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal, by a common order, dated 27. 04. 1994 allowed the applications filed by the petitioner herein and others, setting aside the orders passed by the respondents and also directed the first respondent therein to reinstate the petitioner herein and few others in service. Aggrieved by which, Special Leave petitions in S. L. P. Nos. 14553 to 14557 of 1994 were filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the respondents herein. Allowing the SLP, the order passed by the Tribunal was set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court, on the ground that against the orders of Inspector General of Prinsons, an appeal lies to the Government and directed the Government to dispose of the appeal, within the time limit specified therein and also ordered to pay subsistence allowance at the rate of 50% to the petitioner and others. There is no dispute regarding the payment of subsistence allowance made to the petitioner by the respondents 1 to 3.