Punishment imposed on employee must align with principles of fairness and proportionality; failure to do so may result in quashing of decisions.

ORDER

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. Through this Original Application, applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(i) Allow this O.A. of the applicant.

(ii) Quash the order No. 454 of 2018 dated 28.06.2018, whereby the applicant has been awarded the punishment of reduction in rank i.e. Warder from the date of removal from service and also treated the period w.e.f. 22.08.2012 to 26.06.2018, as dies non.

(iii) Direct the respondents to treat the period from the date of removal to the date of reinstatement i.e. 22.08.2012 to 26.06.2018, as in service and give all the service benefits to the applicant.

(iv) Such other relief which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem just and proper may also be passed in favour of the applicant in view of the submissions made herein above.”

2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicants in their pleadings are as follows:

a. That the applicant while posted as Sg. Warder at District Jail, Kathua in 2012 has been entrusted with the task of taking along the undertrial prisoners from District Jail on the verbal instructions of his superior officers (the then Incharge Superintendent Jail, Mr. Bahadhur Singh & Sh. Surinder Kumar, Assistant Superintendent District Jail Kathua) Surinder Singh Sg Warder. The applicant, had been taking out these prisoners for the last more than 1 ½ years for domestic work and mulching of cow at the official residence of the above named Incharge Superintendent Jail. Under the strict instructions and has been recorded in the in-out register of the concerned jail.

b) That as per the practice in-vogue and in due compliance to the directions of his superior officers, the petitioner took two under trial prisoners namely Sohan Singh & Raj Kumar as a routine from their respective barracks at 6 AM on 22- 08-2012 and took both of them to the official residence of the then Incharge Superintendent Jail, as per his instructions.

c) That the applicant further states that while Raj Kumar had been asked to mulch the cow and other allied works inside the main gate of the house and within four walls of the house, Sohan Singh was asked to do the other domestic work inside the house of the then Incharge Superintendent of Jail.

d) That the applicant submits that as per the instructions imparted to the applicant, the applicant was not permitted to enter the house but was suppose to wait outside the main gate of the Incharge Superintendent Jai. However, after considerable period only Raj Kumar came back to the applicant However, when the applicant, called Sohan Singh to move back to the jail premises & inquired whether he too has completed his work or not, but, when no response came from inside the house the applicant immediately thereafter went inside to get him and found that Sohan Singh had ran away through AC window panel. The applicant has tried his level best to catch the said under trial Prisoner but all efforts went in vain and subsequently the applicant immediately informed all the superior officers including his co-warder S.G. Warder Surinder Singh.

e) That the applicant submits that because of the above incident, the applicant along with various other employees were placed under suspension vide order no. 553 of 2012 dated 22-08-2012.

f) That it is further relevant to submit herein that the applicant along with other alleged persons who were placed under suspension, for so called dereliction of duties, were called upon for the purpose of enquiry vide order no CJJ KB/Esstt/ 1132-33 dated 27-08-2012.

g) That on the basis of the so called dereliction of duties, the applicant was served with a copy of summary of allegations to expl