Disciplinary proceedings must be based on crucial evidence (Para Book), and appellate/revisional orders must contain reasons; otherwise they are invalid and can be quashed.

Judgment

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.Lakshminarayanan J.)

The present appeal arises against the order in W.P.No.29554 of 2010 dated 09.11.2017. By the said order, the learned Single Judge quashed the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the writ petitioner and granted consequential reliefs.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as per their ranks in the writ petition.

3.The facts leading to the writ petition are as follows:-

The petitioner was appointed as Grade II Warder in the Prison Department. He was appointed to the said post after having successfully cleared the examination, conducted by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Board. He was appointed on 23.03.1998. While working in the Central Prison at Salem on 19.10.2000, the writ petitioner was given charge of the second gate of the prison. It was also alleged that the writ petitioner had left the second gate and left the prison without prior permission. It was also alleged that he had also not handed over charge in a proper manner. Hence, he was charged with violation of Rule 78(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prison Manual Volume-2, Rule 21 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and Section 54 of the Prison Act of 1894.

4. Though the incident had taken place on 19.10.2000, the charge memo was served on 06.02.2001. The petitioner gave his explanation on 22.02.2001 stating that the duty of the gate keeper was between 1.00 p.m., to 6.00 p.m., and post 6.00 p.m., the gate keeper of the main gate was to take care of the second gate also till 6.00 a.m., the ensuing day. He pleaded that, on 19.10.2000 the Jail authorities had arranged for a film show to be exhibited for the prisoners. Hence the Jailor, one Thiru.Durairaj, had requested the petitioner to continue his duty till 10.00 p.m. He added that accordingly he continued his para duty till 10.00 p.m and thereafter handed over the key to the Key Guard and left the Central Prison. He urged that these facts had been recorded in the Para Book maintained by the Prison Department. Not being satisfied with the explanation, an enquiry was ordered by the Superintendent of Prisons.

5. The petitioner challenged the charge memo issued to him, by way of an original application in O.A.No.1721 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. By an order dated 20.12.2001, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application and directed the applicant to face the enquiry.

6. During the enquiry, the petitioner requested 18 documents, which according to him were crucial and essential to face the enquiry effectively and for cross examination of the witness. Initially, the Superintendent of Prisons appointed the complainant Thiru.Durairaj as the Enquiry Officer. Subsequently, Thiru.S.Kuppusamy, Additional Superintendent of Prisons, Coimbatore was appointed as Enquiry Officer by the proceedings of the Additional Director General of Prisons on 26.04.2002.

7. During the course of enquiry, the applicant sought permission of the enquiry officer to direct production of the records that he had sought for. He also requested the enquiry officer to peruse the Para Book. The enquiry officer did not grant the relief sought despite the renewed request of the petitioner. He concluded the enquiry on 21.07.2003. On 04.08.2003, the fourth respondent informed the petitioner that the Para Book sought to be produced as his evidence could not be produced since the page dated 19.10.2000 (date of incident) was missing from the book.

8. The enquiry officer submitted a report that the charges had been proved. The report was placed before the 4^th respondent, who agreed with the decision of the enquiry officer that the charges had been proved and rejected the final representation made by the petitioner. He imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. This order was passed on 06.01.2004.

9. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Coimba