V. Moorthy v. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 31-3-2009CoramThe Honourable Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMARW.P.No.42667 of 2006V. Moorthy... PetitionerVs.1.The Superintendent,Central Prison,Chennai - 3.2.Deputy Inspector General of Prisons,Chennai Range,Chennai.... RespondentsPrayer: This writ petition came to be numbered under Article 226 ofConstitution of India, by transfer of O.A.No.4054 of 1999 from thefile of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to callfor the records in No.4918/po3/98, dated 31.8.1998 of the firstrespondent and No.1185/m.u/98, dated 2.12.1998 of the secondrespondent and quash the same and reinstate the petitioner intoservice with all consequential benefits.For Petitioner: Mr.G.ElanchezhiyanFor Respondents:Mr.P.Subramanian,Addl. Government PleaderO R D E RThe prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order oftermination passed by the first respondent dated 31.8.1998, confirmedby the second respondent by order dated 2.12.1998 and for a directionto reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequentialbenefits.2.The case of the petitioner is that he was selected as Grade-II Police Constable by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services RecruitmentBoard. Petitioner joined duty on 27.3.1998 at Central Prison,Chennai-3. He continued in the said post till 31.8.1998, i.e., thedate of order of dismissal from service passed against him. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The petitioner was served with a charge memo on 22.4.1998under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline andAppeal) Rules, and called upon to submit his explanation withinfifteen days. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 2.5.1998 andthe explanation having been found not satisfactory, the firstrespondent suspended the petitioner from service by order dated16.5.1998, pending enquiry into the charges. On 5.6.1998 anothercharge memo under Rule 17(b) was issued to the petitioner statingthat while the Jail Superintendent made inspection on 15.5.1998 inthe early morning, the petitioner was found sleeping before theentrance of the old hospital, which is contrary to Rule 126 and 380of the Tamil Nadu Jail Manual and also Rule 20 of the Tamil NaduGovernment Servants Conduct Rules. Petitioner submitted explanationto the said charge memo also. The first respondent by order dated27.4.1998 appointed the Additional Superintendent of Central Jail,Chennai-3 as Enquiry Officer, who conducted enquiry and submitted theminutes, which was served on the petitioner by the first respondentalong with memo dated 16.7.1998 with a direction to offer his remarkswithin seven days. Petitioner submitted his remarks with regard tothe Enquiry Officer's report. Again, the petitioner was summoned forenquiry on 3.7.1998 with respect to the second charge memo wherein heparticipated and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report, which wasalso furnished to the petitioner with a memo calling for remarks, forwhich the petitioner sought for time to submit his remarks.Petitioner further states that by order dated 31.8.1998 he wasdismissed from service. The appeal filed before the secondrespondent was also dismissed by order dated 2.12.1998 and the saidorders are challenged in the O.A.No.4054 of 1999, which is nowtransferred and numbered as the above writ petition.4.The grounds raised in the writ petition are that thepetitioner was not given reasonable opportunity to defend himselfbefore the order of dismissal; that the show cause notice was issuedproposing penalty along with enquiry repot; that his request forfurther time to submit remarks for second enquiry report was notgranted; that the petitioner was not allowed to cross examine theofficial witnesses; and that the Enquiry Officer not followed theprocedures while conducting the enquiry.5.The respondents have filed counter affidavit wherein it isstated that for the charge memo dated 21.8.1998 the petitioner wassuspended pending enquiry and no final order is passed with regard tothe second charge memo dated 5.6.1998 since the petitioner has notfiled remarks for the enquiry officer's report, and in the enquiryconducted for the second charge memo, the petitioner failed toattend. The dismissal order was passed for the proven charges issuedin the first charge memo. The minutes of the Enquiry Officer wasdrawn for the two charges and copy of the same was forwarded to thepetitioner and he originally sought for seven days time and again https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ requested further time of seven days and once again requested 15 daystime by stating that he could not be in a position to give reply.Since no reply was received, the Disciplinary Authority examined theEnquiry Officer's report carefully and after finding that both thecharges are proved, imposed the punishment of dismissal from serviceby order dated 31.8.1998. The appeal preferred against the saidorder was also dismissed. The Disciplinary Authority, taking note ofthe seriousness of the proved charges, passed an order of dismissaland there is no illegality in the said order of dismissal.6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at the timeof argument submitted that the petitioner was a newly appointedperson and he was not aware of the rules and procedures of the Prisonand hence he cannot be proceeded for the charges levelled against himin the charge memo dated 22.4.1998. The learned counsel fairlysubmitted that there is no procedural violation during the conduct ofenquiry and before passing the order of punishment.7.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for therespondents on the other hand submitted that the charges levelledagainst the petitioner are serious in nature and in fact thepetitioner admitted his guilt by his reply dated 7.4.1998 and6.7.1998 and pleaded for pardon. The police force being adisciplined force, the department viewed the delinquency committed bythe petitioner as serious and passed the impugned order of punishment.8.I have considered the rival submissions made by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner as well as respondents.9.The charges levelled against the petitioner as per thecharge memo dated 22.4.1998 are as follows:"(1)Being an uniformed subordinate, he broughtinside the prison, a bottle filled with brandyconcealed in the bundle of cloths, meant forwashing in the prison laundry, which is prohibitedand contrary to rule No.126, 127 and 298 of theTamil Nadu Prison Manual.(2)Had a relationship with the prisoner, withoutthinking and knowing that he is a personnel of theuniformed service and attempted to bring a brandybottle into the prison concealed in the cloths,which is violation of Rule 147 and 148 of theTamil Nadu Prison Manual."The petitioner, when confronted with the above two charges, submittedexplanation and admitted the guilt in his reply dated 10.4.1998 and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ on 6.7.1998 he pleaded for pardon. In the counter affidavit filed bythe respondents it is clearly stated that the petitioner brought intothe prison, a bottle filled with brandy, concealed in the cloth meantfor washing in the Prison Laundary, which is in violation of Rules126, 127 and 298 of the Tamil Nadu Police Manual, Volume-II. Adepartmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner, though hepleaded guilty and pardon, the charges were held proved.10.Once the serious charges as extracted above having beenadmitted and proved, it is for the department to impose appropriatepunishment. Admittedly petitioner is a Police Constable, employed inthe disciplined force. The charges proved against the petitioner arealso serious in nature. The contention that the petitioner was notaware of the rules, cannot be accepted in view of the principle oflaw that ignorance of law or rule is not an excuse.11.In the decision reported in (2005) 4 SCC 295 (BharatElectronics Ltd. v. CCT) in paragraph 8 it is held as follows:"8.We see no substance in thesesubmissions. Ignorance of law is no excuse. Oncethe notifications stood quashed, the dealers werebound to collect tax at 6%. Even otherwise, it isdifficult to believe that parties in the trade donot know the prevailing rate of tax."In the light of the above well accepted principle of law and havingregard to the fact that the petitioner was posted after the trainingperiod was over, the petitioner cannot contend that he was not awareof the rules. Hence I am of the view that the punishment imposedagainst the petitioner is just and proper and no case is made out tointerfere with the said punishment.There is no merit in the writ petition and consequently the writpetition is dismissed. No costs.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.vr https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai - 3.2.The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Chennai Range,Chennai.+ 1 CC To Mr.G.Elanchezhian, Advocate SR NO.11035+ 1 CC to the Government Pleader SR NO.11245 order in W.P.No.42667 of 2006MA {CO}TP/4.5.2009.