C AYYASWAMY Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINAL Application No,627 of 2001 filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, on abolition, transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as Writ Petition No,49464 of 2006, 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/AB4/99-1, dated 8.9.2000, and consequential order of Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Madurai-16, the second respondent herein and made in No.13580/CC.1/2000, dated 19.10.2000, 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 8.9.2000, and the consequential order of the second respondent, dated 19.10.2000, 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, a charge had been levelled against the petitioner by issuing a charge memo, dated 8.4.1999, wherein it was stated that the petitioner had failed to prevent the damage caused to Government Properties by the inmates of the High Security Ward No.10 of the Central Prison, Coimbatore. Though the petitioner had submitted an explanation, dated 19.5.1999, to the first respondent stating that he had taken steps to prevent the causing of damage to the Government properties, an oral enquiry had been conducted into the charge levelled against the petitioner. During the oral enquiry held on 22.3.2000 and 23.3.2000, three witnesses had been examined by the enquiry officer. None of the witnesses had deposed against the petitioner stating that the damage to the Government properties was committed when the petitioner was in charge. In fact, they had deposed stating that they were not clear of the time when the damage was done. In fact, the petitioner was on duty only from 3.00 A.M to 6.00 A.M, on 19.2.1999. The damage to the Government properties, including the tube lights, fittings and the close circuit television camera, had been committed by the persons belonging to Al-Umma group following the preventive inspection and search conducted in the Ward.

(3.) AT this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had prayed that the punishment of scaling down of the pay of the petitioner to its initial appointment level for two years, with cumulative effect, imposed on the petitioner may be reduced to scaling down of the pay of the petitioner to its initial appointment level for two years, without cumulative effect.