A disciplinary enquiry must be conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and the enquiry report must be reasoned and based on evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner, at the relevant time in the year 2011, working as Warder in the District Jail, Sitamarhi, has filed the present writ application for quashing the order dated 11.02.2013 passed by Respondent No.2 (I.G. Prison, Patna) whereby the petitioner has been awarded punishment of reduction in pay scale to the basic grade with a further punishment that petitioner shall not be paid his salary for the period of suspension except subsistence allowance.

3. The brief fact of this case is that the petitioner, at the relevant time, was posted at District Jail, Sitamrahi. On 05.03.2011, one under-trial prisoner, namely, Teju Sahani fell seriously ill and was to be shifted to the Sadar Hospital, Sitamarhi. The Jail Superintendent deputed the petitioner and three other Jail Guards for shifting the under-trial prisoner to Sadar Hospital under his custody.

4. As per the case of the petitioner, no safety measures were taken by the Jail Superintendent or by District Magistrate by deputing police security guards in the Hospital. The petitioner taking into consideration this situation divided the duty amongst four jail employees including himself of 4 to 4 ½ hours each guard for looking after and guarding the under-trial prisoner. On 06.03.2011 when the other jail security employees accompanying the petitioner was on duty in the early hours, the petitioner went to see and check the prisoner and found the prisoner missing. On the same day, the prisoner was found dead in the river.

5. Due to negligence in duty of the petitioner and other guards, the under-trial prisoner escaped and subsequently, his dead body was recovered from the river, the petitioner and other guards/jail personnel were put under suspension vide letter No. 399 dated 06.03.2011 issued by the Superintendent, Mandal Kara, Sitamarhi. Vide Memo No. 4222 dated 10.10.2011. Respondent took a decision to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner on the charge of negligence and dereliction of duty and accordingly, Memo having charge No.1 and 2 was served upon the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer as well as Presenting Officer were also appointed by the aforesaid letter.

6. The petitioner submitted his written statement in defence denying the charges. The enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report dated 16.02.2012 and thereafter vide letter dated 31.05.2012, the Joint Secretary (Administration), Home Prison, Department issued 2nd show-cause to the petitioner along with a copy of enquiry report. The petitioner submitted his reply to the 2nd show-cause dated 03.09.2012. Thereafter, the impugned order of punishment dated 11.02.2013 was passed by I.G. (Prison), Patna that the petitioner allocated the duty to jail security personnel for 4 to 6 hours each instead of 2-2 hours due to which the security personnel fell asleep and this facilitated the under-trial prisoner to escape from the custody.

7. Learned counsel while assailing the order impugned submits that on 06.02.2012 the enquiry officer fixed the date for conduct of enquiry and in response the petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer, no departmental proceeding and or oral enquiry was held by the enquiry officer. The presenting officer was absent. No witness was examined by the enquiry officer and no document was produced by the department. The contents of the documentary evidence were not proved by examining witnesses. The documents relied upon by the enquiry officer during course of enquiry have also not been supplied to the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel further submits that in the reply filed by the petitioner to the 2nd show-cause, he has contended that the petitioner was not given proper opportunity by the enquiry officer during course of enquiry. No witnesses were examined, so that, he could cross-examine the necessary witnesses produced by the department. The proceeding of enquiry was held on a single day i.e., on 06.02.2