SELVAN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF PRISON COIMBATORE DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records relating to the proceedings of the respondent in No,6417/PO4/04-5 dated 28.10.2004 and quash the same and consequently to direct the respondent to refund the recovered amount and consequently to award all consequential benefits including the refund of recovered amount.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case is as follows:- THE writ petitioner entered into the prison service on 5.5.1984 as Grade-II Warder. He was posted at Central Prison, Coimbatore. In March 2002, he was transferred to Tiruppur Sub Jail. While he was working at Tiruppur from 1.3.2004, there was no regular Superintendent. Hence, the Jail Superintendent at Avinashi was posted as in-charge Superintendent, Tiruppur Sub Jail. According to the petitioner, there are 10 lock up cells in the Sub Jail and 60 remand prisoners. In the 7th lock up cell there were 7 prisoners. According to the petitioner, in the absence of a regular Superintendent for Sub Jail, the Chief Head Warder is in full charge of the affairs of the Sub Jail. On 31.3.2004, petitioner states that he was on duty from 3.00 pm to 6.00 pm and left the Sub Jail at 6.30 pm. THE next person who came into duty is one Subramani, Grade-II Warder. He was in-charge between 6.00 pm to 9.00 pm and thereafter one Arukutty, Grade-II Warder was on duty from 9.00 pm to 12.00 midnight. According to the petitioner, he handed over the charge to the said Subramani, Grade-II Warder in the presence of the superiors. Petitioner's next turn of duty was between 6.00 am to 9.00 am on the next day (i.e.) 1.4.2004. On 1.4.2004 at 5.50 am, petitioner came to Sub Jail for reporting duty and he was informed that about 10.00 pm on 31.3.2004 two remand prisoners had escaped from the 7th lock up cell by pushing out the rusted iron plates fitted on the base of the door. For this incident, petitioner was suspended on 1.4.2004 pending enquiry into the charges contemplated under Rule 17(b). THEreafter, a charge memo was issued on 19.5.2004 stating that the petitioner failed to check up the iron plate fitted on the base of the door of the lock up cell, which resulted in the escape of two prisoners from 7th lock up cell. Several witnesses were examined on behalf of the department. Petitioner submitted his explanation stating that he was on duty between 3.00 pm and 6.00 pm and handed over the keys after inspection of the lock up cell No,7 in the presence of the Superintendent and Chief Head Warder. Along with the petitioner, proceedings were initiated against several other persons and were found guilty. Punishment was imposed as follows:-

(3.) FROM the Suspension order, one fact that clearly emerges is that the petitioner in this case was on duty from 3.00 pm to 6.00 pm only on 31.3.2004. FROM the evidence of co-prisoners and the stand taken by the Assistant Jailor, Sub Jail, Tiruppur, who is also the in-charge of the Superintendent of the Sub Jail, it is clear that the incident happened on 31.3.2004 at 11.00 pm or thereafter and during that period, the petitioner was not on duty. If the procedures as per the jail manual has been followed by the petitioner at the time of handing over charge at 6.00 pm on 31.3.2004, and accepted by the officers, there is no justification to come to conclusion that the petitioner was responsible for the delinquency charged. The order of the Additional Director General of Prisons referred to above clearly states that the maintenance of the Sub Jail, Tiruppur was not proper and the higher authorities have not taken proper care and caution to maintain the jail. Therefore, Thiru Navarathinam, the Assistant Jailor was absolved of the delinquency charged. The Government also accepted the same. On the basis of the above factors, the case of the petitioner stands on the better footing than that of Assistant Jailor for the following reasons:-