BHOLA NATH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved of penalty order dated 11.04.2011 and appellate order dated 17.06.2013, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(2.) Briefly stated, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 21.03.2009, purportedly for his negligence due to which an incident, in which two inmates were killed, took place on 20.03.2009 inside the Ghaghidih Jail, Jamshedpur. A charge-memo dated 03.09.2009 containing 5 charges was served upon the petitioner to which he submitted his reply on 15.12009. Enquiry report dated 19.06.2010 was submitted, in which the enquiry officer found charge Nos. 1, 4 and 5 not proved, however, charge nos. 2 and 3 which are in relation to recovery of several incriminating articles from the prisoners' ward were found partly proved. The petitioner was issued second show-cause notice on 03.08.2010 in response to which he submitted his reply on 18.01.2011, pleading for his exoneration from charges. By penalty order dated 11.04.2011,the petitioner was inflicted punishment of demotion to the post of Assistant Jailor and debarment from promotion in future. The petitioner was deprived of full salary and other allowances except, the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. Appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed on 17.06.2013 and in the mean-time he superannuated from service on 30.04.2011.

(3.) Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that once the main charge, of dereliction of duty due to which inmates Paramjeet Singh and Pramod Kumar Singh @ Gautam died, failed, in view of the finding on insufficient staff and absence of facility for surveillance inside the jail recorded by the enquiry officer, the penalty order dated 11.04.2011 becomes unsustainable in law. Challenging the appellate order dated 17.06.2013 it is contended that it is a statutory appeal under Rule 192 of the Jail Manual and, therefore, the least what the appellate authority should have done was to consider the stand of the petitioner-appellant and return a finding on the same, which the appellate authority has failed to do so. On these grounds, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders impugned in the present proceeding are liable to be quashed.