ANUJ KUMAR SINGH YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dtd. 13/3/2015 passed by the Inspector General Prison and Reforms Services, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna i.e. the respondent no. 4, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of dismissal from service and it has been further postulated that nothing shall be payable to the petitioner for the period of suspension except the subsistence allowances. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the appellate order dtd. 24/1/2016 passed by the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Prison and Reforms Services, Govt. of Bihar, Patna i.e. the respondent no. 2. Consequently, it has been prayed to reinstate the petitioner and make payment of all the consequential benefits.

(2.) The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Warder by an order issued by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Buxar, whereafter he had joined his duties in the year 1984. During the course of time, the petitioner was transferred and posted at the District Jail, Sitamarhi. While the petitioner was posted at the District Jail, Sitamarhi, four prisoners had escaped from the jail on 17/3/2014, out of whom two of them had escaped from Ward Nos. 1 to 4. The petitioner was, at that time, in-charge of Ward Nos. 1 to 4 and was being assisted by one Mr. Indrajeet Prasad, who was the Ward In-Charge. Thereafter, the respondent no. 4 had issued a show cause dtd. 22/3/2014 to the petitioner and he was directed to submit his explanation within 48 hours as to why a departmental proceeding be not initiated against him for dereliction in duty, indiscipline and irregularities committed by him in discharge of his duties. The Superintendent, Divisional Jail, Sitamarhi, had also directed the petitioner to submit his explanation within 48 hours, vide letter dtd. 22/3/2014, whereafter the petitioner had filed his explanation before the respondent no. 4 through the Superintendent, Divisional Jail, Sitamarhi on 3/7/2014 denying all the charges, levelled against him and had further prayed for exonerating him from all the charges. The petitioner was then placed under suspension vide Memo dtd. 5/4/2014, issued by the respondent no. 4. The disciplinary authority had then framed charges in Prapatra-"Ka', which was served upon the petitioner vide letter dtd. 17/5/2014, inter alia alleging therein that on the alleged date and time of occurrence, when the petitioner was in-charge of Ward Nos. 1 to 4, the B.M.P. constables had entered the ward of the prisoners and after beating them had come out, whereupon, though the petitioner was required to count the prisoners and close Ward Nos. 1 to 4 from outside and put locks, however, the same was not done resulting in the prisoners coming out of the ward and engaging in rowdy behavior, enabling the prisoners taking advantage of the said situation and succeeding in escaping from the prison, which depicts gross negligence, indifferent attitude and dereliction in duties on the part of the petitioner.

(3.) The respondent no. 4 had then, vide memo dtd. 2/6/2014 initiated departmental proceedings against 10 persons including the petitioner herein and had also appointed the Conducting Officer as well as the Presenting Officer. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed his written statement of defence on 3/7/2014, before the Conducting Officer and had made request for supply of relevant documents as also had mentioned the names of the witness, which he wanted to examine during the course of the departmental proceeding. The petitioner had also pointed out that since the situation was beyond the control of jail authorities and the prisoners had created unruly scene as also had engaged in scuffle, four prisoners had escaped from the jail. The Enquiry Officer had then submitted his enquiry report dtd. 14/10/2014 finding the charges levelled against the petitioner to have been proved. The disciplinary authority, i.e the Deputy Inspector General, Prison and Reforms Services, had then served a second show cause notice dt. 17/12/2014 upon the petitioner, enclosing a copy of the findings of the Enquiry Officer and directing him to submit his reply within a period of 15 days. The petitioner had then filed his reply on 6/1/2015, however, the disciplinary authority i.e. the respondent no. 4, without appreciating the issues raised by the petitioner had, vide memo dtd. 13/3/2015 inflicted the punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner had then filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of punishment dt. 13/3/2015, however, the same has also been dismissed by the respondent no. 2.