AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Honourable Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma
The Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer, for issuance of a writ, in the nature of certiorari, to quash the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 1, dismissing the Petitioner from service, on the ground of proved misconduct.
During the pendency of the writ petition, the Petitioner died, and his wife Tmt. Neelavathy is brought on recored, as the legal representative.
Late Sri.Punniamoorthy had joined as Armed Reserve Constable in the year 1994 at Avadi, and was later transferred to the 1st Battalion at Trichirappalli, in the year 1996 and then to City police.
The Petitioner was deputed to escort duty, to take a notorious criminal, named, Thiru.Sebastian @ Udahasuriyan, as remand prisoner from Trichy to Aluva Town in Kerala State.
The accused was produced before the learned Magistrate and thereafter, was to be taken to another court for extension of his remand.
The accused escaped on the away, and thereafter arrested.
The Petitioner was, charge sheeted on the ground of misconduct for having allowed the prisoner to escape, on account of his negligence.
The charge framed against the Petitioner was of unbecoming conduct, for having allowed the prisoner Thiru.Sebastian @ Udhayasuriyan to escape from the legal custody, on 18th February 2002 from Kerala State.
The Petitioner was found guilty of the charge and the competent authority ordered dismissal of the Petitioner from service.
Though, the charge against the Petitioner was unbecoming conduct, for having allowed the prisoner to escape from the legal custody, the competent authority held that the Petitioner responsible for dereliction of duty by showing callousness, in observing rules in consonance with the prisoner''s manual, and ordered punishment of dismissal from service.
The Petitioner preferred an appeal against the order, which was also dismissed. The mercy petition filed by the Petitioner, to Director General of Police, Chennai and review petition filed before the State Government were also dismissed, vide the impugned orders.
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the impugned order of dismissal, cannot be sustained as the authorities failed to note that the charge against the Petitioner was of ''unbecoming conduct for having allowed'' the person Sebastian @ Udhayasuriyan, to escape from the legal custody, on 8.4.2002 at Kerala State.
Whereas he has been punished of dereliction of the duty by showing callousness, in observing rules in consonance with the prisoner''s manual.
It is also the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the punishment awarded is very harsh and disproportionate to proved misconduct.
The Learned Counsel for the Respondents contends, that the charge against the delinquent was serious in nature, as he had allowed a notorious criminal to escape and therefore, the punishment of dismissal cannot be said to be disproportionate, to proved conduct, nor the order of punishment is based on the allegations different from the one charged, as the competent authority has taken into consideration the conduct of the Petitioner in allowing the prisoner to escape.
On consideration, I find force in the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
The finding recorded by enquiry officer cannot be faulted. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, however, is right, in contending that the allegation against the Petitioner was of unbecoming conduct, therefore, the punishment of dismissal is certainly disproportionate the charge of misconduct.
There were no allegations against the Petitioner about his connection with the prisoner, or mala-fide in permitting the escape of accused from custody. In absence of any charge of connivance, the punishment of dismissal from service, specially when the accused stood apprehended, soon thereafter and brought to justice. The delinquent has been treated harshly as the punishment of dismissal in disproportionate to proved offence, which cannot be sustained. The punishment is also harsh as on account of dismissal, it is the family of the deceased employee, which is made to suffer as the family will not be entitled to service benefit of the service rendered by late Thiru.Punniamoorthy.
The writ is allowed, the impugned orders are set aside, and the case is remitted back to the competent authority to consider the question of quantum punishment and pass fresh orders, within a period of two months of the receipt of certified copy of this order.
No costs.