Ramashankar Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4729 Chatt

                                    1

                                                                       NAFR
                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                           WA No. 386 of 2022

Ramashankar Singh S/o Shri Rasbihari Singh Aged About 61 Years
Presently Working As Assistant Jail Superintendent, Attached At District
Jail, Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

                                                                ---- Appellant

                                  Versus

1.   State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Sectetary, Department of Home
     (Jail) , Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2.   Director General Prisons And Correctional Services, Chhattisgarh ,
     Jail Headquarters, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3.   The Collector District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

4.   Sub Division Officer (Re.) And The Competent                     Officer
     Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

5.   Jail Superintendent District Jail Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

                                                          ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate.

For Respondents : Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Deputy Advocate General.

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

25.07.2022

Heard Mr. Neeraj Choubey, learned counsel for the appellant. Also

heard Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing

for the respondents.

2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 24.03.2022

passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1229 of 2022,

dismissing the writ petition so far as challenge to order dated 05.06.2021

is concerned, while reserving liberty to the petitioner to assail the order

dated 31.01.2022 by way of an appropriate proceeding.

3. The petitioner is an Assistant Jail Superintendent and at the time of

passing of the order dated 05.06.2021, he was posted at District Jail,

Mahasamund. While he was so posted there, five under-trial prisoners

had escaped from the jail. It is in that circumstance, the petitioner, by the

order dated 05.06.2021, was temporarily posted by way of attachment

until further orders in Sub-Jail, Surajpur for conducting an impartial

enquiry and also to ensure that the petitioner cannot influence the course

of the enquiry.

4. The petitioner had complied with the order dated 05.06.2021 and

one Mukesh Prasad Kushwah, who was posted in place of the petitioner,

had also joined in the District Jail, Mahasamund.

5. The writ petition came to be filed after about eight months of the

issuance of order dated 05.06.2021, on 08.02.2022.

6. In the writ petition, it is pleaded that as the petitioner was not

transferred, monthly salary is disbursed from the District Jail,

Mahasamund, and that no house has been allotted by the Jail Authority at

Surajpur. It is also stated that petitioner's family continues to occupy a

quarter allotted to him in the District Jail, Mahasamund, as there was no

order to vacate the house No. G/1. However, a proceeding was initiated

against the petitioner under the Chhattisgarh Public Premises Eviction

Act, 1974, based on which an order for eviction was issued on

31.01.2022.

7. As noted earlier, the learned Single judge had reserved liberty to

the petitioner to assail the order dated 31.01.2022 by way of an

appropriate proceeding.

8. It is submitted by Mr. Choubey that there is no provision for

attachment and therefore, impugned order dated 05.06.2021, being

ex facie bad in law, is liable to be quashed. He has, however, submitted

that the petitioner is not averse to suffer any order of transfer.

9. Mr. Ahluwalia submits that the attachment order had been passed

as there is an order banning transfer and recourse had to be taken to

pass the order dated 05.06.2021 in the wake of exceptional

circumstances as five prisoners had escaped from the Jail, of which the

petitioner was the Assistant Jail Superintendent. It is further submitted

that in the preliminary enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty in

connection with jail-break and a regular departmental enquiry has been

initiated against the petitioner. He has further submitted that the petitioner

is getting salary regularly and he has also been allotted a quarter in Sub-

Jail, Surajpur, and therefore, the contention advanced that petitioner is

not getting accommodation, being attached to Sub-Jail, Surajpur is not

correct.

10. The learned Single Judge, in the attending facts and

circumstances, had taken a view that the arrangement worked out by

respondents by issuance of attachment order dated 05.06.2021, cannot

be said to be malafide or arbitrary.

11. Having taken note of the factual matrix of the case, we see no good

reason to take a view contrary to the view taken by the learned Single

Judge.

12. Resultantly, finding no merit, the appeal is dismissed. No cost.

                      Sd/-                                          Sd/-
            (Arup Kumar Goswami)                            (Parth Prateem Sahu)
                 Chief Justice                                     Judge




Hem