The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the competent disciplinary authority as per the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, and the interpretation of the appointing authority for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Jail.

V.K. SHUKLA, J.

1. In the present Intra Court appeal, a challenge has been made to the order dated 09-08-2017, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition has been allowed and the order of punishment of withholding of 3 annual increments with cumulative effect dated 07-09-2015 has been quashed and the order passed by the respondent no.1 dismissing the departmental appeal vide order dated 31-12-2015 has also been quashed on the ground that the order of punishment passed by the Additional Director General of Jail is without jurisdiction.

2. The facts leading to filing of the writ petition to the extent they necessary are as follows:

The petitioner was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Jail at Central Jail, Indore. On 04-09-2014, one detenue Jitendra was killed by another detenue Arjun Tyagi by shooting him inside the jail. According to the petitioner, there was no negligence as he had conducted the search in time and he is not involved in the supply of pistol to detenue Jitendra, who had fired on Arjun Tyagi. A charge sheet was issued to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had not taken the search of the jail as per Rule 185 of the Madhya Pradesh Jail Manual, 1968 and he has been negligent in not following the instructions issued by the Jail Headquarter from time to time. Other charge was that as per Rule 570 of M.P. Jail Manual, inspite of recovery of prohibited articles from the detenues, he was negligent in discharging his duties, as failed to take further action in the matter.

3. The petitioner denied the charges and made an excuse that the prisoners in the jail were more than total capacity of Indore Central Jail and only 9 guards were posted inside the jail and one Head Guard and they were looking after other duties of distribution of food etc. Thus, it was under the heavy work load, the guards were not able to keep a close watch on the prisoners. It was also submitted in defence that one Over-Bridge namely Rajkumar passes near the Ward No.5 of the jail and anybody can throw illegal articles inside the jail by standing over the bridge. Many excuses and the reasons were disclosed by him in failure of his duties to keep proper watch on the prisoners. The charges were found proved in the departmental inquiry and thereafter after following the procedure, the petitioner was imposed major penalty of withholding of 3 annual increments with cumulative effect by the impugned order dated 07-09-2015 and it was also directed that except the suspension allowance, no other benefits would be permissible to the petitioner for the aforesaid period. The appeal was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 31-12-2015.

4. The impugned orders of punishment and dismissal of departmental appeal were challenged mainly on the ground that the appointing authority of the Deputy Superintendent of Jail is the State Government and therefore, only the State Government was competent to impose the punishment as the State Government can only be the disciplinary authority whereas in the present case the punishment has been imposed by the Additional Director General of Jail, which is subordinate to the appointing authority and therefore, the punishment order is without jurisdiction. It is further submitted that no reason has been assigned by the respondents in passing the impugned orders wherein it is observed that the explanation given by the petitioner is not satisfactory. It is further submitted that the Enquiry Officer has specifically found that the geographical situation of the jail is not suitable from the security point of view and anybody can throw the prohibited articles inside the jail from the outside jail. It is also contended that only minor punishment could have been imposed in the facts of the present case.

5. The learned Single Judge has dealt only with the issue regarding the authority and held that the order of punishment has been passed by the Additional Director General of Jail, who is not the competent au