SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(SC) 164

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Versus
CHAMAN LAL GOYAL.
Civil Appeal No. 1101 of 1995 {From the Judgment and Order dated 25-8-1994 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 10268 of 1993}
Decided on 31-1-1995
Advocates appeared:
P.P. Rao, Senior Advocate (G.K. Bansal and Sanjay Bansal, Advocates, with him) for the Appellants;
H.K. Puri, Advocate, for the Respondent.

Advocates:
G.K.BANSAL, H.K.PURI, P.P.Rao, SANJAY BANSAL

Headnote:

Promotion – Post Superintendent of Nabha High Security - Transfer from Post - Respondent-writ petitioner was Superintendent of Nabha High Security Jail - On his transfer from the said post, he gave charge of his office - On the night intervening inmates, said to be terrorists, made an attempt to escape. In that connection, two of inmates attempting to escape and one jail official died in the shooting which took place - Six terrorists made good their escape - Inspector General of Prisons immediately inspected the prison and made a report to Government - He reported inter alia that said incident was cumulative result of lax administration, indiscipline and lack of control over prisoners - He reported further that respondent "followed the policy of appeasement towards the extremists – Held, Court has relied upon the decision of this Court on question of delay - That was a case where the charges were served and disciplinary enquiry sought to be initiated after a lapse of twelve years from the alleged irregularities. From the report of the judgment, nature of charges concerned therein also does not appear - We do not know whether the charges there were grave as in this case. Probably, they were not - There is another distinguishing feature in the case before us: by the date of the judgment of High Court, the major part of enquiry was over - This is also a circumstance going into scales while weighing the factors for and against. As stated hereinabove, wherever delay is put forward as a ground for quashing the charges, court has to weigh all the factors, both for and against the delinquent officer and come to a conclusion which is just and proper in the circumstances - Principle of the said decision cannot help the respondent - Appeal is allowed

JUDGMENT

B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.—Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. Under the order impugned herein, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has quashed the memo of charges communicated to the respondent-writ petitioner as well as the order appointing the enquiry officer to enquire into those charges. A further direction has been given to the appellants, viz., the State of Punjab and its authorities (respondents in the writ petition) to consider the case of the respondent for promotion according to law. The correctness of the said order is questioned by the State of Punjab and its authorities in this appeal.

3. The respondent-writ petitioner was the Superintendent of Nabha High Security Jail in the year 1986. On his transfer from the said post, he gave charge of his office on 26-12-1986. On the night intervening 1/2-1-1987 certain inmates, said to be terrorists, made an attempt to escape. In that connection, two of the inmates attempting to escape and one jail official died in the shooting which took place. Six terrorists made good their escape. The Inspector General of Prisons immediately inspected the prison and made a report to the Government on 9-1-1987. He reported inter alia that the said incident was the cumulative result of lax administration, indiscipline and lack of control over the prisoners. He reported further that the respondent "followed the policy of appeasement towards the extremists. He yielded to each and every illegal demand of the extremists. As a result, detenu Gurdev Singh, assumed the leadership of the prison population and dictated terms to the administration. There was a total breakdown of the classification of the inmates in the different wards of the jail. It is quite evident from the fact that three escapees Balwinder Singh, Major Singh and another Balwinder Singh were permitted to stay together along with detenu Kulwant Singh life prisoner Major Singh and three adolescent undertrials Ram Singh, Kulwant Singh and Surinder Singh in a single cell in utter disregard of the Punjab Jail Manual.... It has been told by the members of the staff that the Superintendent Jail, Shri Chaman Lal Goyal, did not inspect the barracks/wards of the jail during the month of December as he was expecting the promotion orders shortly.... Shri Chaman Lal Goyal accepted a farewell party from the most dreadful terrorists, viz., Tarsem Singh Gill, Col. Kahlon, Giani Roshan Singh and others on the receipt of his promotion orders which is against the conduct rules and the provisions of the Punjab Jail Manual". The injured terrorists were interrogated by the police and they have confessed that they had been planning this escape for about a month. He recommended that "the Deputy Superintendent, Shri Surinder Singh and Shri Chaman Lal Goyal, Superintendent Jail, who are responsible for the loose administration and laxity in the control of the inmates may please be placed under suspension at the Government level".

4. It appears that the District Magistrate also ordered the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to enquire into the said incident. The latter submitted his report to the District Magistrate on 26-1-1987. In this report, a copy of which has been included in the material paper-books in this appeal, there are no observations or comments either for or against the respondent.

5. No action was taken against the respondent until 1992. He continued in service as usual. For the first time, he was called to the office of the Secretary to the Home Department on 25-3-1992 for questioning and thereafter the memo of charges was issued on 9-7-1992. The respondent submitted his explanation on 4-1-1993 denying the charges. After obtaining the comments of the Inspector General of Prisons on his explanation, the Government appointed an enquiry officer on 20-7-1993. Soon thereafter, the respondent approached the High Court - on 24-8-1993 - by way of a writ petition seeking the quashing of the charges and the orders appointing the enquiry officer




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top