ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 23-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

“i) For quashing the order contained in memo no. 3866 dated 14.7.2014 passed by I.G Prison (respondent no.3) whereby petitioner has been inflicted with major punishment in a departmental proceeding where by five increments with cumulative effect has been stopped and further punishment of censor has been imposed. Apart from order has been passed that petitioner will not be entitled to any emoluments except the subsistence allowance paid to him during period of suspension however this period will be computed for the purposes of pension.

ii) For further to quash the appellate order passed by Principal Secretary Home department contained in memo no. 1817 dated 19.3.2015 whereby the appeal preferred by petitioner has been dismissed and the order of punishment aforementioned has been affirmed.

iii) For further to quash the enquiry report dated 6.3.2014 submitted by the enquiry officer (resp. no.6) which has been conducted in violation of the principles governing the processes to be adopted during course of enquiry.

iv) For further to hold that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner for alleged charges suffer from vice of malafide and the same is not sustainable because the petitioner has been denied reasonable opportunity to defend himself.

v) For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was posted at District Jail, Hajipur as Assistant Superintendent. In the morning of 22.10.2013 a fight took place between the prisoners in the jail premises because of the reason that one Rambalak Rai who was incarcerated in the said jail died. The petitioner being incharge of the jail at that time neither maintained the situation of law and order nor informed any senior authority about the situation. And because of the said altercation that took place between the prisoners, some prisoners sustained injuries. The petitioner was posted in that jail as Assistant Superintendent whereas his immediate superior authority i.e. Deputy Superintendent was on leave and the Superintendent was out of head quarter. He further submits that the District Magistrate, Vaishali himself monitored the whole incident and personally visited the jail which resulted in normalizing the situation. The District Magistrate vide letter contained in memo no. 1899 dated 22.10.2013 has reported the respondent no. 3 (I.G. Prisoner) to the extent that the petitioner had acquainted the Superintendent of Jail with regard to expected agitation of some prisoners on account of death of one prisoner Rambalak Rai but the Superintendent of Jail acting negligently neither informed to him nor gave information to the Superintendent of Police and remained unauthorized absent during the entire period of incident.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the I.G Prisoner instead of action upon the recommendation made by the District Magistrate has taken disciplinary action against the Superintendent of Jail, came out with an office order contained in memo no. 5297 dated 25.10.2013 whereby petitioner was placed under suspension and during period of suspension his head quarter was fixed at Model Central Jail, Buer, Patna. Thereafter, the charge was framed against the petitioner and accordingly “Prapatra K” was issued. He further submits that from perusal of the aforesaid office order it manifest that that very basis for issuance of aforesaid order is based on interim report submitted by the District Magistrate, Vaishali vide letter no. 1899 dated 22.12.2013 and from perusal of the above report it appears that the interim report does not indict the present petitioner rather recommendation was made to take disciplinary action against the then Superintendent o