Ram Niwas vs State of Haryana

Arun Palli, J.—This is an intra-court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent, as vide judgment dated 26.09.2013, Civil Writ Petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

Appellant was dismissed from service vide order dated 24.02.2010 while serving as a Jail Warder. Dismissal was ordered on account of desertion of duty without availing leave or permission by resorting to the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. Appellant was found to have been maintaining unprofessional liaison with prisoners and due to his conduct Warder Gurvinder Singh was shot dead by a prisoner. Appeal against the order of dismissal was rejected vide order dated 09.08.2012 (Annexure P-12). Further, his appeal to the State Government was also dismissed on 31.07.2013. These were the orders assailed in the civil writ petition.

Learned Single Judge, on a consideration of the matter in issue and the material on record, found that the appellant was transferred from Central Jail, Hisar to District Jail, Gurgaon vide transfer order dated 08.07.2009 but he never joined. S.S.P. Hisar, vide letter dated 29.10.2009, had informed that the appellant was instrumental in enabling a criminal, namely, Devender Chawla to get parole on the basis of forged records. He arranged sureties for Devender Chawla, for availing parole, after pocketing Rs. 30,000/-. Devender Chawla, being on parole, was required to surrender on 18.08.2009 but he did not. In fact, he jumped parole and committed two murders i.e. Inderjeet Gabba on 28.08.2009 and of Gurvinder, the Jail Warden at Hisar Jail on 07.09.2009, respectively. He also attempted to murder one Ramesh, brother of his father-in-law on 04.09.2009. A confidential inquiry was conducted by the Inspector General of Prisons. Findings, that have been arrived at during the process, were recorded referred to in the order of dismissal dated 24.02.2010. In short, the conclusions arrived at revealed that the appellant, in view of his doubtful activity was transferred on administrative grounds from Central Jail, Hisar to District Jail, Gurgaon, but he did not join the duty. Further, some more cases had come to light where the appellant was trying to exert his political pressure for his transfer and duty on the officers. He was found to be in league with the convicts. Appellant was asked to appear for inquiry on 24.02.2010 at Headquarter by the Investigating Officer but he did not appear. S.S.P., Hisar had afforded him ample opportunities to present his case in defence but he remained absconding from duty since 09.07.2009. So much so, he was intimated vide letter dated 23.02.2010 by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Hisar to appear before the Director General of Prisons, for personal hearing on 24.02.2010. But he failed to avail the said opportunity. That being so, the competent authority was of the view that the conduct of the appellant was entirely unbecoming of a jail official and he was guilty of maintaining unprofessional liaison with the prisoners and due to his conduct Warder Gurvinder Singh was shot dead by a prisoner. Thus, there is no justification of continuation of the appellant in service as he has violated the Jail discipline and security. On an analysis of the matter and material on record, the punishing authority concluded that it was not reasonably practicable to hold inquiry and thus, in exercise of power under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, the appellant was dismissed from service.

Issue, whether the punishing authority was justified and had rightly exercised its jurisdiction by invoking the provisions of Article 311(2), was examined at length by the learned Single Judge. And on a consideration of the material on record, the conclusion that was arrived at reads as thus:

"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 he 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."

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records.

All what has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that to dispense with the inquiry in terms of the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, the punishing authority was obligated to record its complete satisfaction and reasons that it was not practicable to hold any such inquiry. Reliance is placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Nagesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 2008(4) SCT 423.

Argument that is being advanced lacks conviction and cannot be countenanced. Of course, there cannot be any quarrel with the said proposition of law. Thus, the short question that arises is whether the order dated 24.02.2010 meets the requirement of law. A bare analysis of the said order brings to fore that S.S.P., Hisar had afforded several opportunities to the appellant to present his case but he availed none. He was found to have been absconding from duty since 09.07.2009. Appellant was purported to be maintaining liaison with prisoners violating jail discipline and code of conduct. Despite intimation for personal hearing on 24.02.2010 before the Director General of Prisons, he failed to appear and avail the opportunity. The punishing authority had recorded that his conduct was entirely unbecoming of a jail official and due to his conduct Warder Gurvinder Singh was shot dead by a prisoner. He had violated the jail discipline and security. Thus, continuing him in service would not be in the interest of jail security or public interest. In these circumstances and in the wake of the material that has been referred to by the punishing authority in its order dated 24.02.2010, it was recorded that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry against the appellant. Needless to assert, the exercise which principally lay within the domain of the punishing authority.

Ex facie, to our mind, the power exercised by the punishing authority under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India was wholly justified and in order. Thus, there hardly exists any ground, least plausible in law, to interfere with the order being assailed in the present appeal. The same being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.