IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:24.11. 2009
CORAM:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR
Writ Petition No.39203 of 2006
(O.A.No.1792 of 1999)
L.Bhojan .. Petitioner
Vs
1. The Inspector General of Prison,
Tamil Nadu
2. The Deputy Inspector General
of Prision,
Coimbatore.
3. The Superintendent of
Central prison,
Coimbatore . . . Respondents
. . .
Prayer: This writ petition came to be numbered by way of transfer of O.A.No.1792 of 1999 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying for a writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the respondents in their proceedings in No.55068/E2(4)/98 dated 29.10.1998, in Se/Mu.Anai.,No.,3975/Mu.U./97 dated 23.,07.1998 and also in Se.Mu.A.No.10310/C1.Ci.3/96-5 dated 15.05.1997 respectively, quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all monetary and service benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Rajsekaran
For respondents : Mr.C.K.Vishnu Priya,
A.G.P.
. . .
O R D E R
The writ petition is filed to quash the proceedings of the respondents in No.55068/E2(4)/98 dated 29.10.1998, in Se/Mu.Anai.,No.,3975/Mu.U./97 dated 23.,07.1998 and also in Se.Mu.A.No.10310/C1.Ci.3/96-5 dated 15.05.1997 respectively and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all monetary benefits.
2. The petitioner was working as Grade II Warder in the Sub Jail at Ooty. On 09.07.1996, he was in charge of Sub Jail,Ooty, between 12.00 noon to 6.00 p.m. and thereafter, he handed over the charge to the next warder in the presence of senior officials. It is stated that on 10.07.1996 around 1.45 a.m. five prisoners escaped from lock up. The petitioner and other warders and senior officials were placed under suspension. Pending enquiry into the grave charges, in terms of Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules suspension order was served on the petitioner and four other officials in Sub Jail, Ooty. The enquiry officer after completing enquiry, found that all the delinquents, guilty of charges framed. Based on the enquiry report, third respondent by his proceedings in Se.Muu.A.No.10310/C1-Ci.3/96-5 dated 15.05.1997 dismissed the petitioner and three others from service. Against the order of dismissal of the petitioner and other warders, an appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Jail Department, Coimbatore was filed and the same was dismissed by Order Se.Mu.Anai.No.3975/Mu.U/97 dated 23.07.1998. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the petitioner filed a revision before the Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore, who by his proceedings in No.55068/E2(4)/98 dated 29.10.1998 rejected the revision. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred O.A.No. 1792 of 1999 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. Because of the stay granted by the Tribunal, petitioner was reinstated into service on 21.07.1999. On abolition of the Tribunal, the matter is now transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.39203 of 2006. It is stated that in the meanwhile, the petitioner retired on 31.08.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Inspector General of Prison before whom the revision petition was filed, did not take into consideration the merit of the petitioner’s case and that nowhere it is indicated that delinquent was in charge or on duty at the time of occurrence i.e. between 12.00 a.m and 3.00 p.m on 10.07.1996. Further when the petitioner handed over the charge to the next warder in the presence of senior officers, the question of petitioner being involved in the delinquency is misconceived. In any event, it is submitted that the Superintendent of Sub Jail was imposed with lesser punishment whereas, for no fault of the petitioner, he was dismissed from service, even though he did not commit any wrong. The Inspector General of Prison without recording any reason, has summarily rejected the revision petition and therefore, it is a non-speaking order. Petitioner further submits that there is total non application of mind by the authority to relevant facts which goes to show that the petitioner is not connected with the incident.
4. A counter has been filed reiterating the fact as contained in the impugned proceedings. The petitioner has miserably failed to perform his legitimate duties and that there is no ground to interfere with the order of dismissal.
5. In the present case, though several points were urged on behalf of the petitioner, the main plea of the petitioner appears to be that the revisional authority has not taken into consideration the merits of the petitioner’s case that he cannot be connected to the delinquency considering the time when he was relieved from duty. The authority has failed to take into consideration the prima facie case and the petitioner’s plea for leniency with regard to the imposition of the punishment of dismissal from service. In any event, it is submitted the fact that no reason whatsoever has been given in the impugned order by the revisional authority, would go to show that the first respondent did not consider the prima facie case and the oral and documentary evidence which will establish petitioner’s innocence. The impugned order has been passed cursorily without appreciating the merits of the petitioner plea of no knowledge and non involvement. Further, the punishment imposed is improper and disproportionate.
6. On going through the order, it is seen that there is no reason whatsoever to support the order of rejection of the revision petition. The order of the authority does not indicate that there was application of mind on various points raised by the petitioner and there is no reason recorded to show that the merits of the petitioner’s case has been considered and rejected. The narration of events as presented by the Department has been recorded and the authority has merely concluded by passing the order rejecting the Review petition stating that he finds no merits in the revision. Such an order cannot be stated to be a reasoned order. It shows total non application of mind. In such view of the matter, an order, bereft of reasons, cannot be sustained and has to be set aside.
7. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order of the first respondent in No.55068/E2(4)/98 dated 29.10.1998 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the same authority for fresh consideration on its own merits within a reasonable time. No costs.
Index:No
Internet:Yes 24.11.2009
PAL
Note: Send a copy to the concerned Authority immediately.
To
1. The Inspector General of Prison,
Tamil Nadu
2. The Deputy Inspector General
of Prision,Coimbatore.
3. The Superintendent of
Central prison, Coimbatore
R.SUDHAKAR,J.
Pal
W.P. No. 39203 of 2006
DT.24.11.2009