T. Rajkumar v. The Superintendent of Prison

Order No. and date Nature of delinquency

¶1Censure No.1678/CA/1991, dated 14.02.1992 Non-submission of Personal Register and allied records

¶2Censure S.F.2/G1/1992, dated 16.03.1992 For coming late to office during Inspector General's Annual Inspection

¶3Postponement of next increment for the period of 6 months without cumulative effect SF/OM/92, dated

23.07.1992 Non-submission

of Personal Register and allied records.

¶4Postponement of next increment for the period of 3 months without cumulative effect 10195/G2/93, dated

28.07.1993 Unauthorized absent of duty on 13.07.1993 and not submitting uniform Indent in due date.

¶5Censure SF.2/G2/1992, dated 08.09.1992 Insubordination to the superior officers.

¶6Censure No.1800/G1/99, dated 11.03.1999 For not vacating the Government Quarters.

¶7Censure No.5402/G2/1993, dated 16.04.1999 Dereliction of duty.

¶8Censure No.10180/G4/1999, dated 14.07.1999 Unauthorized absence of duty on 18.05.1999 and

19.05.1999.

¶9Postponement of his next increment for the period of 3 months without No.15972/G4/99-3, dated 21.10.1999 For not taking action on an appeal petition. SI. No. Details of punishment Order No. and date Nature of delinquency cumulative effect

¶10Postponement of his next increment for the period of 3 months without cumulative effect No.22670/G4/1999, dated 29.12.1999 For delay in taking action on Audit Report.

¶11His pay was reduced to bottom of time scale for a period of 2 years without cumulative effect No.20647/G4/1999, dated 29.04.2000 For not attending Medical Board and not handling over charge of the seat of G3 after transferring to Central Prison, Vellore

¶12Postponement of his next increment for the period of 3 months without cumulative effect No.19615/G4/2000, dated 11.12.2000 Non-submission

of Personal Register and allied records.

¶13Censure No.2377/G2/2002, dated 15.04.2002 Leaving the Headquarters without permission

¶14Postponement of his next increment for the period of 3 months without cumulative effect No.3133/G4/2000, dated 11.12.2000 Dereliction of Duty

¶15Postponement of his next increment for the period of 3 months without cumulative effect No.19615/G4/2000, dated 11.12.2000 For not attending Medical Board.

¶16Postponement of his next increment for the period of one year without cumulative effect No.9173/G4/2003, dated 30.05.2003 For refusing to accept petitions of TNLA prisoner for taking further action

¶17Censure No.16783/G4/2003, Non-submission

of SI. No. Details of punishment Order No. and date Nature of delinquency dated 14.01.2004 Personal Register and allied records

¶18Censure No.26895/G4/2003, dated 18.03.2004 Insubordination to Higher Officers.

¶19Postponement of his next increment for the period of one year without cumulative effect No.4253/G4/2004, dated 26.04.2004 Dereliction of his duties.

¶20Postponement of his next increment for the period of 3 months without cumulative effect No.4604/G4/2004-2, dated 27.04.2004 Non-submission

of Personal register and allied records.

¶21Compulsory Retirement (obtaining stay order in Hon'ble High Court, Chennai) No.12882/G4/2003, dated 26.05.2004 Insubordination to higher officers, dereliction of his duties and not sent the P.T. Warrant to the Courts concerned.

¶25The Petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the Prison Department on Compassionate grounds on 17.02.1988. On bare perusal of punishment at his credit during his service in the Prison Department from the year 1992 to 2004, he was awarded nine times censure and postponement of increment without cumulative effect for eleven times. By the Order dated

26.05.2004, he was awarded compulsory retirement by the Superintendent, Coimbatore Centre Prison in No.12882/Po.4/03.

¶26He has applied for medical leave from 20.06.2005 to 22.05.2006. The Medical Board has eight times sent letters for appearance of the petitioner before the Medical Board, but he did not appear before the Medical Board even on one occasion.

¶27As regards the first impugned order dated 30.5.2008 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Prison upon the findings of the enquiry officer for the charges as mentioned supra, he was awarded punishment of increment cut for three years with cumulative effect which will have an impact in the pension. The sum and substance of the charges are that, when he applied for medical leave over and above 60 days, he did not appear before the Medical Board and failed to receive the letters sent by the Borstal School. Omitted to do his duties, thereby he violated the Prison Manual Rules and disobeyed the order of the higher officials, thereby he caused so much of inconvenience to the Prison Department.

¶28As regards the impugned order dated 08.04.2010, this was awarded by the District Superintendent of Prison. Wherein, the charges are five in number: i. He did not attend office from 20.06.2005 onwards. ii. He refused to receive the notice on 17.06.2005. iii. Continuously remained absent by sending medical certificates. iv. Based on the same, the petitioner did not appear before the Medical Board despite the instructions. v. He did not report to duty continuously for four years, thereby he did not cooperate with the administration and the same amounts to administrative indecorum. Though he was served with the notice, he did not participate in the enquiry and therefore, an order of dismissal from service was passed.

¶29When an application for injunction was filed, it was dismissed in M.P.No.2 of 2011 on 29.07.2011 by this Court.

¶30The judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but reviewing the manner in which the decision is made and it is meant to ensure that the investigation has received fair treatment, and the conclusion reached is whether proportionate to the charges or not. If the authority has proceeded in the manner inconsistent with the principles of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules or finding was based on no evidence.

¶31Law is settled that it is the domain of the appointing authority/disciplinary authority to decide as to the punishment to be imposed on the delinquent provided that the punishment is proportionate to the delinquency. If at all, punishment is shocking the conscience of the Court, the Court shall interfere with the same in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of Constitution.

¶32While awarding the punishment, considering the nature and gravity of the charges and entire service records of the petitioner may be looked into in order to maintain discipline and efficiency in service in Prison Administration.

¶33It is well established principles of administrative jurisprudence that leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The petitioner has sent applications for grant of leave one after another, almost for a year for twelve times, which never can be taken to be a bonafide act, because he did not appear before the Medical Board not even once. Eight notices for appearance were sent to him by the Medical Board, as mentioned supra. Even communications and notices have been served to the appellant by affixture. This shows his non-cooperation with the department. Even when a communication was sent by the Chairperson of Coimbatore Medical Hospital, he did not appear before Medical Board for examination and direction was given by the Dean, Medical College Hospital to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner for not appearing before the Medical Board.

¶34The charges made against the petitioner are acts of gross misconduct and breach of administrative discipline in the prison administration. The petitioner had developed unhealthy attitude by committing acts of misconduct and failed to discharge his duties, which is unbecoming of the employee of the Prison Department. Therefore, taking into totality of circumstances, I am of the considered view that order of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellant Authority do not suffer from any infirmity or perversity.

¶35In view of the facts and given circumstances, when tested on the touchstone of the principles of administrative law and governing rules, the only plausible conclusion is that the orders passed by the authorities concerned, the dismissal from service has to be maintained. W.P.No.12220 of 2012

¶36The eviction notice dated 09.04.2012 issued by the respondent against the petitioner in No.10488/PO-1/2010 is under challenge and direction is also sought for, to permit the petitioner to stay in quarters No.6, Staff quarters, Central Prison Compound, Coimbatore.

¶37The facts which are leading to the filing of this writ petition is set out hereunder. The petitioner T.Rajkumar son of Thangaraj was appointed in the year 1988 as Junior Assistant in the Prison Department by the Inspector General of Prison. He was a Selection Grade Assistant and he is unmarried and was living with his mother in No.6, Staff Quarters, Central Prison compound, Coimbatore. While he was working under the control of the respondent, he was compulsorily retired on 26.05.2004 for the charge of non complying of certain instructions issued and contrary to the duties assigned to him as per the provisions of Prison Manual. He challenged the said in W.P.18490 of 2004. As per the interim order dated 17.08.2004 passed in W.M.P.No.22028 of 2004 restrain the respondent to evict him from the quarters. The order of stay was made absolute by the order of this Court dated 07.03.2006. While so, he was transferred to Pudukottai Borstal School, where no staff quarter was available. On receipt of an urgent message from Coimbatore about the serious health condition of his mother in Coimbatore, he rushed to Coimbatore on 18.05.2005 by getting two days Casual Leave. Meanwhile, a charge memo dated

17.06.2006 under 17(b) was framed against him for the charges of unauthorized absent and non-appearance before the Medical Board. Upon enquiry, he was removed from service on 08.04.2010 but he was not disturbed from the quarters in Coimbatore since he was not allotted any quarters in Pudukkottai and the respondent has served eviction notice dated 09.04.2012 directing him to vacate the quarters and surrender it immediately. Hence this writ petition.

¶38Heard Mr.R.Sankara Subbu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.V.Veluchamy, learned Additional Government Pleader and Mr.S.Rajesh, learned Government Advocate for the respondent.

¶39The learned counsel for the petitioner would strenuously argue that the respondent has no jurisdiction to issue eviction notice to the petitioner when he was given protection by way of an interim order by this Court.

¶40Mr.V.Veluchamy, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would vehemently argue that the petitioner was alloted quarters in Central Prison, Coimbatore premises, when he was working in the Central Prison, Coimbatore with effect from 18.12.1993. He was transferred to Central Prison, Vellore on 08.07.2001 and he has not vacated inspite of repeated order of office of the Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore. Hence, penal rent was recovered from him vide proceedings No.524/G1.2000 dated 03.08.2001. He would further argue that the petitioner has no right to occupy the quarters even after he was transferred to Central Prison, Vellore. When notice to vacate the quarters was issued to the petitioner, he filed O.A.No.2765/2002 and obtained an Order of interim stay dated 07.05.2002. The allotment of official quarters is a concession to the government employee, it cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It appears that, he was transferred from Central Prison, Coimbatore to Borstal School, Pudukkottai and joined duty on 08.11.2004. Thereafter also, he continued to occupy the quarters at Coimbatore Central Prison, which is not justifiable. When government servant occupies a quarters when he holds a particular post, on earlier occasion also, it was held that the department is perfectly justified in evicting the applicant from the quarters and an order of eviction cannot be found fault with, and O.A.No.2765 of 2002 was dismissed.

¶41Thereafter, the petitioner was ordered to vacate the quarters before

15.03.2004, he moved writ petition before this Court by an order of interim stay for a period of twelve weeks was granted, and it was further extended up to

10.08.2004.

¶42It has also been stated that the petitioner owns a house in Gandhipuram, Coimbatore and this was found out through police verification report. This was hidden, and he applied for allotment of quarters in the prison premises. The petitioner was awarded punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner was transferred from Central Prison, Coimbatore to Borstal School, Pudukkottai and took charge as Assistant at Borstal School, Pudukkottai on 08.11.2004.

¶43After a reasonable time and upon permission, he is permitted to stay in the quarters. Thereafter, his stay after transfer to another place, his occupation of the quarters is not justifiable.

¶44The petitioner has deprived similarly placed staff of Central Prison, Coimbatore from occupying the staff quarters as he was in occupation of the official quarters after he was transferred to Borstal School, Pudukkottai.

¶45The petitioner is unlawfully occupying the quarters, and it appears that he has not remitted any rent to the Government thereby caused loss to the Government. When the petitioner is not in service, he is not entitled to occupy the official quarters.

¶46It is relevant to refer the Tamil Nadu Prison Manual - Volume II, as per Rule No.157, every subordinate officer dismissed, discharged or allowed to resign his appointment, shall be required at once to quit the prison and quarters occupied by him. Therefore, the petitioner is not eligible to reside in the Government Quarters. Order in W.P.No.17744 of 2011:

¶47Based on the aforesaid discussions and observations, this writ petition stands dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any stands closed. Order in W.P.No.12220 of 2012:

¶48Based on the aforestated discussions and observations, this writ petition also stands dismissed and the time for the petitioner to vacate the official quarters is four weeks from today. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

30.09.2024 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-Speaking order stn/ mac

R. KALAIMATHI, J. stn/ mac To

¶1The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Trichy Range, Trichy.

¶2The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Borstal School cum District Jail, Pudukottai. W.P. No.17744 of 2011 and W.P. No.12220 of 2012

30.09.2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30.09.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHI W.P.No.17744 of 2011 T. Rajkumar ... Petitioner -vs- 1. The Superintendent of Prison, Borstal School cum District Jail, Pudukottai. 2. The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Trichy Range, Trichy. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS, to call for the records relating to the punishment dated 30.05.2008 imposed by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner in proceedings No.4572/Mu/Vu/2007 and the further punishment dated 08.04.2010 imposed by the 1st respondent in Proceedings No.9803/Po1/2004 and quash the same and consequentially to direct the 1st respondent to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential service and monetary benefits including retrospective promotion on par with his junior. W.P.No.12220 of 2012 T. Rajkumar ... Petitioner -vs- The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore. ... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS, to call for the records relating to the eviction Notice dated 09.04.2012 issued by the respondent against the petitioner in proceedings No.10488/Po 1/ 2010 and quash the same and consequently to direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to stay in the Quarters No.6, Staff Quarters, Central Prison Compound, Coimbatore. In both W.Ps For Petitioner : Mr. R. Sankara Subbu For Respondents : Mr.V.Veluchamy Additional Government Pleader and Mr.S.Rajesh Government Advocate COMMON ORDER The proceedings No.4572/Mu/Vu/2007 dated 30.05.2008 awarded by the 2nd respondent and the further punishment awarded by the 1st respondent in proceedings No.9803/Po 1/2004 dated 08.04.2010 are under challenge. 2. The petitioner T. Rajkumar S/o. Thangaraj submits that he was working as an Assistant at Central Prison, Coimbatore. Pursuant to the Orders of the Authorities, he was transferred to Pudukottai in the year 2004. He was approaching the Authorities for re-transfer to Coimbatore to look after his aged mother, who was ill. Upon a phone message from his neighbour about his mother's sudden illness on 18.06.2005, he applied for casual leave for two days from 20.06.2005 to 21.06.2005. As his mother's health did not improve, he was taking her to various hospitals and meanwhile, his health was also affected, thereby he applied medical leave by requesting the Authorities to convert his casual leave to medical leave with effect from 20.06.2005 onwards. Further he extended his medical leave till 15.06.2006. Based on the direction of the 1st respondent to hand over charge and key on 14.07.2005, as no co- staff co-operated to receive the charge and key from him, he did not hand over the charge and key to anybody. Thereafter, upon the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 09.07.2005, specifying the persons for handover, was served on him on 01.08.2006. He handed over the locker key to his co-staff Ganesan and Rengaraj on 06.08.2005. 3. The petitioner would further submit that when he went to the office of the 1st respondent on 16.06.2006 along with fitness certificate to rejoin the duty and the Superintendent In-charge, who was looking after the affairs of the 1st respondent's jail was not available on that day. Hence he came on the next day as per the direction for re-joining the duty. He was not permitted to rejoin and at the same time, the 1st respondent attempted to serve a hurriedly prepared charge memo dated 17.06.2006 to him with predetermined mind. As the 1st respondent did not permit him to rejoin and also initiated departmental action, he returned back to Coimbatore. The petitioner further submits that since his mother was suffering from various continuous ailments, he could not concentrate about the letters sent from the Medical Board from the 1st respondent. 4. The det