Ram Niwas vs State of Haryana and Others

Rajiv Narain Raina, J.—The petitioner has been dismissed from service by the order dated 24.02.2010 while serving as a Jail Warder under the control of the Director General of Prisons, Haryana. He had put in 17 years of service by them. The reason for dismissal is desertion of duty without availing leave or permission. The petitioner was transferred from Central Jail, Hisar to District Jail, Gurgaon vide transfer order dated 08.07.2009. He was relieved by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Hisar vide order dated 09.07.2009 but the petitioner did not join duty at District Jail, Gurgaon as conveyed by Superintendent, District Jail, Gurgaon vide letter dated 27.01.2010. The petitioner has been dismissed without inquiry by resorting to provisions of article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India with a finding that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry. The petitioner was found maintaining unprofessional liaison with prisoners and due to his conduct Warder Gurvinder Singh was shot dead by a prisoner. The SSP, Hisar by his letter dated 29.10.2009 had intimated that the petitioner was instrumental in enabling a criminal Devender Chawla to get parole on the basis of fudged records. It was alleged that the sureties of Devender Chawla for availing parole was arranged by the petitioner after pocketing Rs. 30,000/- from Devender Chawla. The petitioner enabled prisoner Devender Chawla to sell the jailbird''s gold ring and chain clandestinely to raise the bribe for his parole for illegal gratification. The Inspector General of Prisons, Haryana verified facts and endorsed the view of the SSP, Hisar that money passed hands. The SSP, Hisar had give many opportunities to the petitioner to present his case in defence but he remained absconding from duty since 09.07.2009. The statutory appeal against the order of dismissal was rejected vide order dated 27.08.2012 (P-12). The petitioner was heard in person by the Director General of Prisons before passing the impugned order on 09.08.2012. He pleaded mercy. His further appeal to State Government was turned down on 31.07.2013. While on parole by order of the trial court, Devender Chawla did not surrender on 18.08.2009 the date fixed for surrendering. After jumping parole he was arrested on 06.10.2009, but not before he could be he committed two murders of Inderjeet Gabba r/o Hansi on 28.08.2009 and of Gurvinder, the jail warden at Hisar Jail on 07.09.2009. Devender Chawla had while on the run also attempted on 04.09.2009 to commit murder of Ramesh r/o Hisar who is the brother of his father-in-law. Devender Chawla is said to have entered the world of crime in 1997 and had committed 10 serious crimes till 2006 including 3 murders, the first of which was allegedly committed in 1997.

The explanation furnished by the petitioner for absence from duty was the stock defence that he was ailing and, therefore, could not report for duty. The petitioner has ex post facto placed reliance on medical certificates to show that he was ill and unable to travel. Although he was intimated vide letter dated 23.02.2010 by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Hisar to appear before the Director General of Prisons, Haryana for personal hearing at 10.00 A.M. on 24.02.2010 but he did not avail of the opportunity. Therefore, the petitioner cannot complain that he was not heard before the impugned order was passed. In the circumstances, the petitioner cannot be heard to complain that his dismissal from service was visited without holding a regular inquiry into his misconduct he had created such situation that it may not have been reasonably practicable to hold enquiry. The order of dismissal though was preceded by a confidential enquiry conducted by the Inspector General of Prisons (Inquiry Officer) the findings of which have been recorded in the impugned order as follows:-

Regarding this enquiry has been conducted by the undersigned. It has been found during the course of inquiry on the basis of documents produced that Warder Ram Niwas Punia was recruited in the Jail department in the year 2003. This employee appears to be a dubious character. Keeping an eye on the doubtful activities of this employee, a list of Mobile calls has been got procured with the help of Superintendent of Police, Hisar. Ram Niwas has called upon Sh. Varinder Rana, Advocate 134 times w.e.f. 1.1.2009 to 04.01.2009. On 4.1.2009 and 4.02.2009 respectively he has called six times on the said phone each. In addition, he has called on his number 20.3.2009-9 times and 25.3.2009 at 10 times and on 31.3.2009, 7 calls have been made. Besides this, so many times, he has called on the number of Varinder Rana, Advocate which shows the nearness of the employee with Sh. Varinder Rana, Advocate because as per the calls list, Warder Ram Niwas called upon the number of Varinder Rana, Advocate and in this duration, about 80 court cases have been filed by Varinder Rana in the Hon''ble High Court. It is evident that Warder Ram Niwas Punia has been helping the prisoner to get parole and premature release as he was in league with Sh. Varinder Rana. In this way, for filing these cases, the financial relationship of Sh. Varinder Rana with Ram Niwas cannot be ruled out. Although there is no documentary evidence on record but during inquiry, it was found that the convict Davinder Chawla S/o. Jagan Nath Chawla who had committed two murders after having been released from the jail. One of the murders related to a warder of the jail Gurvinder who was posted in Ambala Jail. The involvement of Ram Niwas, warder is evident from the pairvi of these cases and therefore, the role of Ram Niwas for getting the parole for Devender Chawla and Krishan Chimbi cannot be ruled out. As per record of the office, Warder Ram Niwas keeping in view his doubtful activities was transferred on administrative grounds from Central Jail, Hisar to District Jail, Gurgaon but he has not joined his duty till date. Reliable sources have revealed that some other cases have come to light where this warder for his transfer and duty has been trying to put political pressure on the officers and he is in league with the convicts. As per the record and other related facts, it has been noticed in the inquiry that this Warder also being careless in performing his duty, his activities have been found to be doubtful and the Warder Ram Niwas Punia rather than taking interest in his duties has been found to be pursuing court cases. Inquiry report is submitted.

The aforesaid warder was called for inquiry on 24.2.2010 at the Headquarter but he did not appear.

The reasonable practicability of holding an inquiry is a matter of assessment to be made by the disciplinary authority who is the best judge on the spot and knows what is happening at ground level. The learned author Justice M. Rama Jois, former Chief Justice of this Court in his book "Services under the State", 1987 ed. in the Chapter-Exceptions to Article 311(2), opined:-

In order to decide whether the reasons are germane to clause (b), {Art. 311} the court must put itself in the place of the disciplinary authority and consider what in the then prevailing situation a reasonable man acting in a reasonable way would have done. The matter will, have to be judged in the light of the then prevailing situation and not non-contemporaneously as if the disciplinary authority was deciding the question of dispensation {sic. of} inquiry in the cool and detached atmosphere of a courtroom, removed in time and space from the situation in question. Where two views are possible, the court will decline to interfere.

There is sufficient guidance in these words. In the larger public interest of the security of the Jail and looking to the sensitivity of the duties of a Jail Warder, in this case confirmed by the mobile call record of multiple exchange of phone calls between the petitioner and the named Advocate who was none other than the counsel of Devender Chawla, and had filed 80 cases relating to the same jail of under trial prisoners etc. the petitioner had compromised the jail administration and was a tout who posed grave threat to jail administration, and therefore its walled security. Such Jail Warders can have no sympathy of the Court or be heard to raise extremely technical pleas that an inquiry ought to have been held. The petitioner hid from the law for too long and disobeyed lawful orders when called for hearing. He cannot be heard to complain of breach of principles of natural justice having failed to respond to the call for personal hearing on 24.02.2010 by the Director General of Prisons, Haryana. This itself confirms the belief that it was not reasonably practicable to hold inquiry. I find no reason to upset the order of dismissal from service. The view taken to dispense with the inquiry involves expediency and matters of police policy which is left best, in the facts of this case, to be judged in the hands of those who run jails. Such networks and links with advocates by jail officials deserve to be put to an end which may tend to impair the administration of justice. Jail inmates deserve a fair chance to be represented by counsel of their choice and be saved from the trap not knowing that their cases may be messed up by lack of skill and care and fee extracted and then exchanged between the lawyer and the tout, just as in this case.

No merit.

Dismissed.