BHARAT SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. K Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S Sen Gupta, learned GA appearing for the respondents.

(2.) By this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the impugned order dated 07.11.2013 passed by the Director General of Prisons, Meghalaya, Shillong for imposing major penalty of removal from service to the petitioner. In the impugned order itself, it is stated that the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (for short 'the Rules of 1964') was adopted by the Govt. of Meghalaya and also the procedures prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1964 for imposing major penalty to the writ petitioner had been followed. As the present writ petition is filed challenging the dismissal order dated 07.11.2013 solely on the ground that the procedures prescribed for imposing major penalty under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1964, had not been followed in the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, this Court by an order dated 13.10.2014, had granted two weeks' time to the learned GA to keep the record available (record for departmental proceedings) for perusal by this Court at the time of hearing, if so required. Accordingly, Mr. S Sen Gupta, learned GA appearing for the respondents placed before this Court the proceedings of the departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Before entering into the controversy between the parties as to the compliance of the procedures prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1964, brief fact leading to the filing of the present writ petition is noted.

(3.) The petitioner was serving as Warder and sometime in the year 2009, the petitioner was posted in B-Class ward in the Shillong District Jail. On 31.05.2009, there was a jail break leading to escaping of 7 Under Trial Prisoners (for short 'UTPs'). The petitioner is not denying the said incident of jail break but what is pleaded in the present writ petition is that the petitioner, while trying to prevent the escape of the UTPs, was assaulted with a heavy metallic object by one of the escapees, and as a result, he had serious head injuries and thereafter, the petitioner fell unconscious and was treated in Civil Hospital, Shillong. For that jail break incident, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order of the Additional Director of Prisons, Meghalaya dated 01.06.2009 with immediate effect pending disposal of the disciplinary proceedings on account of the escape of 7 UTPs from Shillong District Jail on 31.05.2009. By an order dated 03.01.2011, one Shri. A.C. Baruah, District Jail, Jowai had been appointed as enquiry officer against the petitioner for the said incident, and the petitioner had been informed for appointment of the enquiry officer only on 03.01.2011. It is also stated in the writ petition that after the appointment of Shri. A.C. Baruah as enquiry officer for the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner vide order dated 03.01.2011, the disciplinary proceedings was started only on 10.01.2011. As this writ petition is filed heavily relying on Rule 9 of the Rules of 1964, it would be more convenient to reproduce Rule 9 of the Rules of 1964 as follows:-