SURAM SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER of Controller of Prisons dated September 12,1978 by which the petitioner was reverted to the rank of selection grade has been challenged in his writ Petition mainly on the grounds of violation of the principle of natural justice and holding of inquiry in contravention with the service rules appealable in the case. The petitioner has alleged that respondent No.2 held a Departmental Inquiry against him in the matter of scuffle which had taken place with the premises of the Jail in which an undertrial namely Dharmu succumbed to injuries caused to him by another prisoner during the course of a quarrel between two groups of prisoners. After the inquiry the Superintendent Central Jail recommended that annual increment of the petitioner be stopped for a period of two years and the period of suspension be treated as leave of whatsoever kind is due to him. The petitioner had submitted his reply to the summary of allegation on 13th March, 1978 denied all the allegations levelled against him. It was submitted by him that at the time of the alleged occurrence he was near the condemned cell with the Medical Officer and Medical Assistant of the jail to get the ailing condmned persons checked -up and treated and that he had reached at the spot of alleged occurrence alongwith the Medical Officer and the Medical Assistant on bearing the noise. It was further submitted that he did not have any knowledge about the occurrence nor did he participated in the same. The petitioner was cited as a witness in the case filed in the Court of law on the basis of the FIR lodged under Sections 302,149 and 148 RPC. He, however, did not support the case of the prosecution at the trial. It is alleged that during the inquiry the petitioner was not permitted to examine important witness namely the Medical Officer and the Medical Assistant and the Inquiry Officer failed to ascertain the truth from the aforesaid witnesses. It is submitted that the finding of the Inquiry Officer were vague, indefinite and insufficient which did not warrant any imposition of punishment upon the petitioner. The Irespondent No.2 is alleged to have not complied with the provisions of Rule 33 and 34 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,1956 as the petitioner is alleged not to have been supplied with the copies of the proceedings under Rule 33. The impugned order is alleged to have vitiated on account of the respondent No.2 to consider the reply of the petitioner while passing the impugned order. It is submitted that inquiry held by respondent No.2 suffers from legal and procedural infirmity and the conclusion, arrived at by him were groundless and being without any basis It is further submitted that no case of misconduct was made out against the petitioner and that the impugned order and the pro -ceedings of the inquiry suffered of violation of the principles of natural justice.

(2.) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it s submitted that as the writ petition suffer from unexplained delay and latches the same is liable to be dismissed. According to the respondents a murder took place in the Jail premises and the petitioner who was present at the time and was an eye witness made the written report to the respondent No.2 vide his number 826 dated 10th May, 1975. The report was in the petitioners own hand writting which was forwarded to the Police Station Pacca Danga with his statement under section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner did not upport the case of the prosecution and even denied the report lodged by him. As the petitioner had turned hostile without any basis and iquiry was directed to be conducted against him in which the order impugned in the writ Petition was arrived at after complying with the procedure of law and the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was affoftled full opportunity of being heard during the inquiry before the passing of the impugned order in the writ petition. The grounds alleged by the petitioners have been concocted and are after thought.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.