V.Balakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 26-10-2007Coram :The Hon’ble Mr. Justice ELIPE DHARMA RAOandThe Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.TAMILVANANWrit Petition No.44030 of 2002V.Balakrishnan … Petitionervs.1. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.2. The Inspector General of Prisons Egmore, Chennai – 8.3. The Superintendent Central Prison, Vellore.4. The Registrar Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. .. RespondentsWrit Petition, seeking certiorari is filed by the petitioner, underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records relatingto the order in O.A.No.2971 of 2002, dated 12.06.2002 passed by the fourthrespondent herein and quash the same and further to direct the respondentsto reinstate the petitioner in service with backwages, continuity ofservice and other consequential benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Vasudevan For Respondents : Mr.K.Balakrishnan, AGP (W)O R D E RS.TAMILVANAN, JAggrieved by the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal,Chennai, dated 12.06.2002 made in O.A.No.2971 of 2002, the applicanttherein has come forward with this writ petition, seeking an order ofcertiorari to call for the records and quash the impugned order and alsofor necessary direction to reinstate him in service with all monetarybenefits. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. It has been admitted that the petitioner herein was initiallyappointed as Gr.II Warder in Central Prison, Vellore in the JailDepartment, during 1972 and he was promoted as Gr. I Warder in the year1983. While he was working as Gr. I Warder in the Central Prison,Vellore, during the intervening night of 15/16.11.1991, 8 prisoners, whowere all life convicts, lodged in the Central Prison, Vellore, in thesixth block had escaped from the prison. In connection with the jailbreak, the petitioner herein and other officials, responsible for theoccurrence were dealt with under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu CivilServices (D&A) Rules. As per the charge memo, dated 21.03.1992, thepetitioner was accused of negligence and dereliction of duty. It is not indispute that during the aforesaid night hours, when the life convictsescaped from the prison, the petitioner was on para duty from midnight12.00 to early morning 3.00 a.m. Subsequently, enquiry was held by theDeputy Inspector General of prison, Madurai, witnesses were examined andthe enquiry officer concluded his finding that the charge framed againstthe petitioner has been proved. 3. The Second respondent, accepting the findings given by the enquiryofficer, passed an order of dismissal against the petitioner and few othersimilarly placed delinquent officials, after providing opportunity toraise their defence. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitionerpreferred O.A.No.4022 of 1993 before the Tamil Nadu AdministrativeTribunal. The Tribunal, by a common order, dated 27.04.1994 allowed theapplications filed by the petitioner herein and others, setting aside theorders passed by the respondents and also directed the first respondenttherein to reinstate the petitioner herein and few others in service.Aggrieved by which, Special Leave Petitions in S.L.P.Nos.14553 to 14557 of1994 were filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the respondentsherein. Allowing the SLP, the order passed by the Tribunal was set asideby the Hon’ble Apex Court, on the ground that against the orders ofInspector General of Prinsons, an appeal lies to the Government anddirected the Government to dispose of the appeal, within the time limitspecified therein and also ordered to pay subsistence allowance at therate of 50% to the petitioner and others. There is no dispute regardingthe payment of subsistence allowance made to the petitioner by therespondents 1 to 3. 4. It is seen from the said order of the Hon'ble Apex Court that thesame was passed with the consent of the learned counsel for the respondenttherein / the petitioner herein. Pursuant to the order passed in the SLP,G.O.Ms.No.1488, Home (Prison – II) Department, dated 04.10.1995 waspassed, whereby the orders of the Inspector General of Prison, dismissingthe petitioner and others were set aside by the Government and theInspector General of Prison was directed to initiate denovo enquiryagainst the petitioner herein and others. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. It is seen that in the enquiry, sufficient and reasonableopportunity was afforded to the petitioner and others to cross examine theprosecution witnesses. Based on the evidence, the enquiry officer foundthe petitioner and others guilty of the charges framed against them.Accepting the enquiry officer’s report, Inspector General of Prisonimposed punishment of dismissal against the petitioner and few others fromservice by his order, dated 08.04.1997. Aggrieved by the said order, thepetitioner preferred an appeal before the State Government, which wasrejected by G.O.Ms.No.1127 dated 16.10.2000. Against the said order, thepetitioner preferred O.A.No.2971 of 2002 before the Tamil NaduAdministrative Tribunal, Chennai. The Tribunal considering the evidenceand other materials available on record, has dismissed the application.Aggrieved by which, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 6. Mr. K.Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for the petitionerherein contended that the Tribunal has not considered the length ofservice of the petitioner, while dismissing the application and contentedthat principles of natural justice was not followed by the respondents 1to 3. According to him, the punishment of removal of the petitioner fromservice is too harsh and disproportionate to the charges leveled againsthim. 7. It is not in dispute that on 15/16.11.1991, 8 prisoners, all lifeconvicts, who had been lodged in the Central Prison, Vellore in the sixthblock escaped from the prison. In connection with the jail break, thepetitioner herein and others were all dealt with under Rule 17 (b) ofTamil Nadu Civil Services (D&A) Rules. Admittedly, the petitioner was onduty as Gr.I Warder in the aforesaid block of the Central Prison, Vellore,at the relevant time. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is nospecific charge framed against the petitioner. As contended by the learnedAdditional Government Pleader, allowing 8 life convicts to escape from theCentral Prison cannot be taken so lightly. Had the officials responsiblefor guarding the persons been diligent in discharging their duty, the lifeconvicts could not have escaped from the prison. The Officials of theprison, including the petitioner, who were responsible to guard the lifeconvicts in the block of the prison were grossly negligent in dischargingtheir duty, hence, it can be construed as dereliction of duty. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend thatcertain other officials were given lesser punishment, whereas thepetitioner was given capital punishment of removal from service. But it isseen from the materials placed on record and the enquiry report thatsimilarly placed four officials, who were entrusted with the primary dutyof guarding the aforesaid prisoners were all removed from service,considering their gravity of negligence and dereliction of duty. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9. It is seen from the findings, based on the evidence, that on thenight of 15/16.11.1991, 8 life convicts, including two srilankans, byremoving the tiles of the roof of Block No.6 making a gapping man-hole onthe ceiling and latter jumped out through that hole made on the roofing ofthe toilet in the prison and they went to the space just opposite to thesixth block, pulled out casuarina posts from a nearby shed, making use ofa tennicoit net from one of the unused cells, made a ladder, went to theperimeter wall, climbed up through the ladder one by one on the perimeterwall and jumped down through the ladder out side and escaped from theprison, said to be well guarded. It is quite clear that the occurrencecould not have taken place suddenly, at the mid night on 15/16.11.1991.The sequence of the events would show that the life convicts had pre-planned everything and also executed the same due to the gross negligenceand dereliction of duty committed by the prison officials, who wereprimarily responsible to guard the prisoners, at the sixth block of theCentral Prison, Vellore.10. It is a settled proposition of law that in a writ petition,unless there is manifest error of law or perverse finding, leading tomiscarriage of justice, this Court cannot interfere with the impugnedorder passed by the Tribunal. In such circumstances, the punishmentimposed on the petitioner, who was one of the primarily responsibleofficials, by removing him from service, would not be construed as tooharsh or disproportionate to the charges leveled against him. 11. On the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered viewthat there is no error or infirmity in the impugned order passed by theAdministrative Tribunal, so as to warrant any interference by this Court,under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the writpetition fails.12. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as tocosts. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrartsvn https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.2. The Inspector General of Prisons Egmore, Chennai – 8.3. The Superintendent Central Prison, Vellore.1 cc To Mr.K.Vasudevan, Advocate, SR.62484.W.P.No.44030 of 2002 ASM(CO)RVL 02.11.2007