COMMON ORDER

[Order of this Court was delivered by T.RAJA, J.]

The petitioners have come to this Court, challenging the G.O.

Ms. No.1036 Public (Law and Order-A) Department dated 17.12.2021 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, the first respondent herein and subsequent Proceedings No. 1774/Po4/2022 dated 14.02.2022 issued by the Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore, the third respondent herein and seeking a direction to the respondents to return the amount of Rs.2,500/- and Rs.5,200/- deducted from their salary for the month of February 2022,.

2.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were appointed as Grade-II Warden at the Coimbatore Central Prison on 01.11.2017 and 14.04.2002 respectively. However, there are 800 inmates as accused and convicted persons inside the third respondent prison and there are only few officials appointed, including the petitioners for the duty to supervise such a high number of prisoners. Since some of the prisoners are disobedient and arrogant by nature, the officials are facing difficulties in managing the prisoners, who will not act in the same manner every day and they indulge in fights and arguments as part of the day today routine, inside the prison. While so, on 05.06.2018 at about 13.10 p.m., two prisoners, namely, Ramesh (Inmate No.7638) and Vijay (Inmate No.7929), after having their lunch, initiated a quarrel between them and suddenly, the said Ramesh was attacked by Vijay by a big stone, which leading to severe injuries on his head. On the date of incident, since the petitioners were deputed to guard the tower 3 of the prison, they immediately secured the victim and taken him to the hospital, where he was declared brought dead by the Doctors. Though they are not solely responsible for the said incident, the third respondent had initiated departmental action against the petitioners under Rule 17(a)

of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and imposed punishment on both of them stating that the next increment postponed for six months without cumulative effect.

3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that when the departmental action was initiated against the petitioners, the petitioners were under the impression that since they are not solely responsible for the said incident, justice could be done by the respondents. But the victim's wife by name R.Thangam Karunya gave a representation to the State Human Rights Commission to take action against the persons responsible for the said incident. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the State Human Rights Commission, taking note of the said representation, by exercising its suo motu power, without even giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioners, had passed an order stating that it was the duty of the State to protect the life of the prisoners in the prison and as the prison officials had failed to do so, the State was vicariously liable for the death of the prisoner Ramesh for the violation of his human rights. However, the Commission, considering the report of the Investigation Wing of the Commission along with other documents, had observed that since the prisoner Ramesh was handed over to the jail administration as per law to produce him before the Court concerned as and when required, the jail authorities cannot escape from their liability for the death of the deceased Ramesh by taking the plea that he was killed by the co-prisoner and due to the lack of supervision and negligence on the part of the jail authorities, the innocent life of the prisoner was taken away. Finally, the Commission, coming to the conclusion that since the department had already initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioners under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, there is no need to pass any order against the petitioners, directed the State Government to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- t