Santosh Bahadur vs State Of Tripura And Ors

The petitioner, a retired Government servant, has challenged an order dated 17.02.2018 passed by the Secretary to the Government of Tripura by which a penalty of reduction of pension by 7.5% for a period of 3(three) years from the date of superannuation has been imposed.

Brief facts are as under:

The petitioner joined the Government service as a Sub-Jailor in the year 1986. He joined the post of Deputy Superintendent on 24.04.2008. On 31.03.2016 he joined Kendriya Sansodhanagar as a Superintendent-in-Charge. On 21.10.2016 at around 7.15 p.m. three convicts escaped from the said jail. In connection with this incident the petitioner was first placed under suspension on 24.10.2016 and thereafter a charge-sheet was issued to him on 31.01.2017 in which the charge levelled against the petitioner was that while working as Superintendent-in-Charge, Kendriya Sansodhanagar, on 21.10.2016 he did not discharge his duty properly which resulted into three convicts escaping from the custody of the jail. In the process, the petitioner had failed to supervise effectively Kendriya Sansodhanagar as well as his subordinates posted in the said centre. It was alleged that the petitioner had thus exhibited gross negligence in discharge of his duties. In the statement of imputation of misconduct, this charge was elaborated. It was pointed out that the three convicts were lodged in the Kendriya Sansodhanagar. They escaped from the jail on 21.10.2016 with the help of one rusted iron pipe which was about 20 feet long and was found positioned in an inclined state on the wall of the jail. It was alleged that the petitioner had not assigned the duty of a staff member as fixed sentry on the tower No.5 in the northeast corner of the jail due to which the prisoners got an opportunity to escape. Sri Ashu Kr. Jamatia was assigned the duty between 4 p.m. up to the lockup time on the date of the incident but he was found absent from duty and came from home when he was informed on the phone about the incident. Thus, the petitioner had also failed to supervise the presence of his subordinate jail staff. It was further alleged that a 20 feet long G.I. pipe was used by the prisoners for escaping by placing the pipe on the tin shed which was used at the kitchen or tea stall. The petitioner also failed in his supervisory duty which allowed the convicts to remove the said pipe from the kitchen and use it for escaping.

The petitioner denied the charges upon which a departmental inquiry was conducted. In his defence the petitioner urged that he had not shown any negligence in discharge of his duties. The work of supervision of the staff of the jail was mainly that of the Jailor and not the Superintendent or the Deputy Superintendent. He submitted that the prisoners could escape because of the faulty construction of the jail and failure to install CCTV cameras.

The Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 18.12.2017. He raised two questions for consideration namely, (i) whether the delinquent failed to supervise the Kendriya Sansodhanagar as well as his subordinate staff which resulted into escape of three convicts on 21.10.2016; and (ii) whether the delinquent had committed gross negligence in discharge of his duties which was unbecoming of a Government servant. The Inquiry Officer held that the issue No.(i) noted above was partially proved. He was of the opinion that the delinquent had failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and acted in a manner which was unbecoming of a Government servant.

A copy of the inquiry report was made available to the petitioner. He was allowed to make a representation, in which he challenged the findings of the Inquiry Officer. He contended that the incident took place because the spot from where the convicts escaped was not sufficiently lit up and Sri Ashu Kr. Jamatia, the warder who was assigned the wall duty was not present.

The disciplinary authority issued a memorandum dated 20.01.2018 recording his tentative decision to impose the penalty of 7.5% cut in pension for a period of 3(three) years. He allowed 15 days time to the petitioner to make a representation. The petitioner filed a detailed representation to the said memorandum on 12.02.2018. The disciplinary authority thereupon passed the impugned order dated 17.02.2018 and confirmed his decision to impose the said penalty upon which this petition is filed.

Appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel Ms. R. Purkayastha submitted that the petitioner is falsely involved in the said case. The petitioner had not exhibited any negligence in discharge of his duties. The internal inquiry of the department suggested that there was no involvement of the petitioner. However, subsequently the departmental charge-sheet came to be filed and the disciplinary authority wrongly concluded that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct. He submitted that the petitioner had already retired from service before the final order could be passed. Since in any case, there was no evidence of gross misconduct, the petitioner's pension could not have been reduced. Counsel relied on a decision of Supreme Court in case of Anant R. Kulkarni vrs. Y.P. Education Society and others, reported in (2013) 6 SCC 515 in which it was observed that in absence of any statutory power on the management to hold fresh inquiry after retirement of an employee, the High Court committed an error in granting such a liberty.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the petition contending that there was ample evidence on record to suggest gross negligence on part of the petitioner in discharge of his duties. Inquiry was conducted after following all these statutory rules and principles of natural justice. The punishment awarded cannot be stated to be grossly disproportionate to the proved charges. He, therefore, contended that the petition be dismissed.

As noted, the charge against the petitioner was of negligence in discharge of his duties and failure to supervise his subordinates which enabled three convicts lodged in the jail to escape. The Inquiry Officer in his report has discussed the materials on record at considerable length. The disciplinary authority has accepted the findings of the Inquiry Officer and after enabling the petitioner to make a representation, imposed punishment. It is well settled that the findings arrived at by the disciplinary authority in a duly constituted domestic inquiry would not be open to interference unless they are shown to be perverse. No perversity is pointed out in the present case. Even otherwise, it can easily be appreciated that three prisoners were facing convictions, escaped from jail by devising a plan as simple as taking out a 20 feet long iron pipe from a kitchen shed and placing it on the wall of the jail for climbing over and escaping. It was not an externally intelligent plan devised which with a minimum of care and vigilance the jail staff could not have anticipated and prevented. To begin with, why the fact of a missing iron pipe from the shed of the kitchen not reported is not clear. Further, the watch and ward staff Sri Ashu Kr. Jamatia whose duty was to guard a particular watch tower, was absent when this incident took place. The petitioner was in-charge of Kendriya Sansodhanagar. He cannot escape his liability by simply suggesting that it was a duty of the lower staff to guard the jail and ensure against any escape of the inmates.

Coming to the question of the imposition of a cut in pension, looking to the proved charges, the same cannot be stated to be disproportionate, leave alone grossly disproportionate. The cut in pension is not permanent but would operate only for a period of 3(three) years.

Decision in case of Anant R. Kulkarni (supra) rests on entirely different facts. In the said decision while recognizing that generally an inquiry which is initiated before the retirement of the delinquent employee, would continue after the retirement, obviously the nature of punishment would change, nevertheless in absence of any statutory power being conferred on the management to hold fresh inquiry after retirement of an employee, the High Court could not have granted such a liberty. Thus, it was a case where inquiry which was initiated previously was concluded. In the meantime, the employee having retired, it was held that in absence of any specific powers, the management cannot be allowed to conduct fresh inquiry after retirement.

As a result, the petition fails and is dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.