RAMESH CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the instant writ petition is to the order dated 12.10.2012, Annexure P1, passed by the Superintendent, Headquarter Jail, Patiala whereby the extreme penalty of dismissal has been imposed upon the petitioner who was holding the post of Head Warder, having invoked the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. It would be pertinent to notice at the very outset that even though a departmental remedy of appeal would be available to the petitioner against the order passed by the Punishing Authority, yet this Court has proceeded to examine the validity of the impugned order in view of the fact that such order, in itself, recites that it has been passed upon approval having been already granted by the higher authority i.e. Additional Director General of Police (Jails), Punjab.

(2.) BRIEF facts are that the petitioner was working as Head Warder, Central Jail, Ludhiana and was on duty on the intervening night of 19/20.9.2012. Six inmates of the Jail including one life convict and five under trials managed to break open the wall of the Jail Cell and escaped. One of the undertrials was apprehended on the same very night and the five other inmates were arrested on the next day at Railway Station Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 20.9.2012 and a preliminary enquiry was conducted into the matter by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jails, Punjab. It is in relation to such incident that occurred on the night of 19/20.9.2012 that a view has been taken that the petitioner has not performed his duties in a proper manner and was grossly negligent and the impugned order of dismissal has been passed by dispensing with the regular departmental enquiry in terms of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India.

(3.) PER contra, learned State counsel would refer to the joint written statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 5 to contend that the petitioner was on duty at the Cell Block and B Class Ward on the night in question. At about 1.20 a.m., Supervisor Prisoner Lakhbir Singh made a round of the Cell Block and Chakkis. He found that an inmate, namely, Ram Kumar had made a hole in Chakki No. 8 and was escaping. At such juncture, another Supervisor Prisoner Devinder Singh also raised an alarm that some other inmates were also making good their escape. It is contended that the petitioner inspite of the alarm having been raised did not reach the spot till 20 minutes thereafter at the Cell Block. It is further urged that the petitioner being the Head Warder did not make the round of Cell Block in time and has been grossly negligent in the performance of his duties. A reference has also been made to a preliminary enquiry having been conducted by the Additional Director General of Police (Jails) Punjab and a report having been furnished, which stands appended as Annexure R1/T along with the written statement. Passing of the impugned order has been justified in the light of such preliminary enquiry report.