G SUNDARAM Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINAL Application No,243 of 2001 filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, on abolition, transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as Writ Petition No,3455 of 2007, seeking for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order of the Inspector General of Prisons, Chennai, first respondent herein and made in No,23/AB4/99-3, dated 11.9.2000, and consequential order of Superintendent of Prisons, Coimbatore, the second respondent herein and made in No.PO.4/8667/99, dated 18.9.2000, and quash the same.) This writ petition has been filed to call for and quash the records relating to the order of the first respondent, dated 11.9.2000, and the consequential order of the second respondent, dated 18.9.2000, imposing the punishment of scaling down of the pay of the petitioner to its initial appointment level for two years, with cumulative effect.

(2.) IT has been stated that the petitioner was working as Assistant Jailor, Central Prison, Coimbatore, during the month of February, 1999. While so, a preventive inspection had been conducted in Ward No.10 of the prison at 3.30 A.M, on 19.2.1999, with the help of the Field Officers and Field Assistants of the Police and Prison Department. The Al-Umma activists, who were the inmates at Ward No.10 of the Central Prison, Coimbatore, had resisted the search and they had caused damage and loss to the Government properties. Therefore, two charges had been levelled against the petitioner by a charge memo, dated 8.4.1999, stating that when the search was being conducted, prohibited items like iron blades, aluminum plates, iron rods, nails and pipes were found in the ward, showing that the petitioner had failed to discharge his duties, properly. IT was also stated in the second charge levelled against the petitioner that damages had been caused to the tube lights, bulbs and fittings and the closed circuit television camera fitted in the ward. IT was alleged that the petitioner had failed to prevent the damage caused by the Al-Umma activists to the Government properties. The petitioner had submitted his explanation, dated 19.5.1999, to the first respondent. However, by the proceedings, dated 18.6.1999, the first respondent had appointed an enquiry officer to conduct an oral enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner. During the oral enquiry held, on 22.3.2000 and 23.3.2000, eleven witnesses had been examined by the enquiry officer. The petitioner had submitted his explanation, dated 29.3.2000, before the enquiry officer. In the findings of the enquiry officer, dated 20.4.2000, the petitioner was found to be guilty of both the charges. The petitioner had submitted his further explanation, on 17.6.2000. However, without considering the said explanation submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have passed the impugned orders imposing the punishment of scaling down of the pay of the petitioner to its initial appointment level for two years, with cumulative effect.

(3.) IN view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for interfering with the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 11.9.2000, and the consequential order of the second respondent, dated 18.9.2000, imposing the punishment of scaling down of the pay of the petitioner to its initial appointment level for two years, with cumulative effect.