IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary authorities have the discretion to impose penalties based on the severity of misconduct, particularly in security-sensitive roles, and courts will not interfere unless there is a clear violation of principles of natural justice or the punishment is grossly disproportionate.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

R.N.LADDHA,J. - This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dtd. 04/04/2014 passed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Goa and Appellate Authority, whereby the Appellate Authority has confirmed the major penalty of dismissal from service, imposed upon the Petitioner and dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioner.

2. The Petitioner was in service of the Respondent - State of Goa and while he was posted at Margao sub-jail cum judicial lockup as an Assistant Jailor, he remained unauthorizedly absent which resulted into escape of 14 under trial prisoners on 16/9/2007. Hence, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the Petitioner, inter alia, on the grounds that the Petitioner, while functioning as an Assistant Jailor during the period from 12/5/2007 to 16/9/2007, at the judicial lockup Margao, committed misconduct inasmuch as he failed to ensure proper functioning of the judicial lockup by remaining absent on duty unauthorizedly from 13/9/2007 to 16/9/2007 and showing no devotion to duties at all. From the date he was appointed at the Judicial Lockup, Margao, he miserably failed to maintain proper control and supervision over his sub-ordinate staff as he remained absent frequently. This lack of devotion to duties proved costly, as on 16/9/2007, 14 under trial prisoners escaped from the Margao judicial lockup.

3. As the inquiry was held into the said charges, the Enquiry Officer recorded a finding that the charges leveled against the Petitioner have been proved. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the findings and passed an order imposing a major penalty on the Petitioner, of dismissal from service. A statutory appeal was thereafter taken by the Petitioner to the Respondent no.1 being an Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, however, found no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the appeal was accordingly dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has filed this petition urging various grounds.

4. The second respondent, in the reply affidavit, defending impugned order, states that the charge against the Petitioner is more serious than the one framed against the co-delinquents in this case. In addition, the reply states that the Petitioner has disrupted the team work at judicial lockup, Margao owing to periodic, sudden and prolonged absence and that he remained continuously absent for 22 days in July, 2007, for 29 days in August,2007 and was absent without any leave granted even beyond i.e. from 1/9/2007 up to the jailbreak. Memorandum bearing No.11/298/2000/IGP/0392 dtd. 15/3/2000 mandates the Jailor or Assistant Jailor to make themselves available on duty for 24 hours on rotation on their term during night hours, irrespective of Sunday and holidays. Again, vide Memorandum, bearing No.11/298/2000/IGP/437 dtd. 21/8/2007, attention of the supervisory executive staff was invited to the aforementioned Memorandum dtd. 15/3/2000 to ensure their availability for 24 hours on rotation. In spite of these instructions, the Petitioner chose to remain absent putting the jail security in peril.

5. Further, the reply states that the Petitioner was frequently absent from the duty right from joining the Department. It is also stated in the reply affidavit that the office record shows that the Petitioner had misappropriated Government monies, demonstrated gross negligence in the performance of his supervisory duties, poor and inefficient disposal of work, complete lack of integrity and devotion to his duties.

6. Mrs. A. A. Agni, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner urged with vehemence that the Enquiry Officer considered the absence of the petitioner for the period from 1st to 5/9/2007 and 14th to 15/9/2007 when the charge was subsequently about the unauthorized absence from duty since 13th to 16/9/2007. However, the service record of the Petitioner shows that on 13/9/2007 he was very much present