BIPIN KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WORKING as Assistant Jailor, the petitioner was posted during the relevant time at Bagaha Sub - Jail. As such Assistant Jailor, the petitioner was in -charge of the day to day affairs of the said Sub - Jail. On 24th September, 1998 the petitioner wrote a letter to his higher authorities asking for more men to guard the said Sub -Jail. On 16th March, 1999 the petitioner wrote yet another letter to his higher authorities stating that in view of paucity of manpower he is facing difficulty in honouring the mandate of keeping the outer gate of the jail locked up. On 5th June, 1999 the petitioner wrote yet another letter to his higher authorities and thereby contended that the manpower strength of the said Sub -Jail has dwindled down to almost half of the sanctioned strength and as a result, he is facing difficulty. On 29th June, 1999, eleven undertrial prisoners escaped from the said Jail. One of them facilitated such escape by wielding a gun. This gentleman was produced in court on the date of escape while he also received 10 kilograms of Aata.

(2.) ON 5th August, 1999 a charge -sheet was issued to the petitioner which contained three separate charges. The first charge was failure on the part of the petitioner in keeping the outer gate of the said jail locked up. The second charge was that the body of the said prisoner was not appropriately searched when he returned after having been produced before the Court and at the same time the bag carrying 10 kilograms of Aata was also not appropriately searched, which facilitated smuggling of the gun into the jail premises. The third charge was that the prisoners were required to be taken indoors by 6 O 'clock in the evening but they were taken indoors in the said jail at 6.45 in the evening. The petitioner gave a reply to :he show cause. In the show cause he purported to blame inadequate manpower and excess of prisoners as the reasons for occasion of the incidents being the foundation of the said charges. The matter was then enquired into by an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer found as a fact, which is also not being disputed in the instant writ petition that the escapees escaped from the front gate when the same was unlocked. The Enquiry Officer held that due to unavailability of adequate manpower the front gate could not be kept under lock and on that ground exonerated the petitioner of the said charge. The Enquiry Officer found as a fact that by a letter the petitioner had instructed all his subordinates then working in the Jail to ensure that the body of all prisoners entering the prison as well as every goods entering the prison should be thoroughly checked up and the said instruction was acknowledged in writing by each of the subordinate employees of the said jail. The Enquiry Officer felt that in the circumstances whatever the petitioner could do having been done, the cannot be made personally liable for smuggling of the gun inside the jail either through the body of that prisoner or through the bag containing 10 kilograms of Aata destined to him. In relation to the third charge, the Enquiry Officer found as a fact that the jail housed more prisoners than its capacity. The Enquiry Officer found that because of such increased number of prisoners, it takes longer time to conclude countdown and also longer time to prepare their meals. The Enquiry Officer found that during the summer months, sun sets later and accordingly held that taking the prisoners in -house at 6.45 PM is not a serious charge.

(3.) UNDER cover of a letter dated 22nd June, 2000, the disciplinary authority while forwarded to the petitioner a copy of the enquiry report, it disagreed with the opinion of the Enquiry Officer. The reasons for disagreeing were that in relation to Charges 1 & 3 there were clear cut instructions and there is admission of violation of those instructions and accordingly in relation to those charges, the disciplinary authority is not ad idem with the opinion of the Enquiry Officer. In so far as Charge No. 2. is concerned, the disciplinary authority opined that the petitioner being the highest supervisory officer of the Jail in question, he could not disown his responsibility only by issuing instructions to his subordinates as was done by him.