Tripura High Court
Review Pet. No.12/202 vs The State Of Tripura And Ors on 18 March, 2021
Page - 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Review Pet. No.12/2021
Sri Santosh Bahadur.
.............. Petitioner(s).
- Vs. -
The State of Tripura and Ors.
............... Respondent(s).
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. R Purkayastha, Advocate,
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M Debbarma, Addl. Govt. Adv.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
_O_R_D_E_ R_
18/3/2021
This review petition is filed by the original petitioner seeking
recall and review of a judgment dated 5th August, 2020 passed in WP(C)
No.259/2018.
[2] Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner is a retired
Government servant. In the year 2016, he was posted as a Superintendent-
in-Charge of Kendirya Sansodhanagar. On 21st October 2016, three
convicts escaped from the jail of which the petitioner was the
Superintendent-in-Charge. For negligence in discharge of his duties he
was first placed under suspension and thereafter visited with a charge
sheet. Before completion of the departmental inquiry he retired.
Page - 2 of 5
Departmental proceedings continued after his retirement. Inquiry Officer
held that the charge was proved. He was allowed to make representation
which was considered by the disciplinary authority. After communicating
tentative decision to impose penalty of 7.5% cut in pension for 3 years
and allowing the petitioner to make a representation, the disciplinary
authority imposed the punishment of cut in pension as proposed. This
order of the disciplinary authority was challenged by the petitioner in the
writ petition. Writ petition was dismissed in following terms :
" * * *
9. As noted, the charge against the petitioner was of
negligence in discharge of his duties and failure to supervise his
subordinates which enabled three convicts lodged in the jail to
escape. The Inquiry Officer in his report has discussed the
materials on record at considerable length. The disciplinary
authority has accepted the findings of the Inquiry Officer and
after enabling the petitioner to make a representation, imposed
punishment. It is well settled that the findings arrived at by the
disciplinary authority in a duly constituted domestic inquiry
would not be open to interference unless they are shown to be
perverse. No perversity is pointed out in the present case. Even
otherwise, it can easily be appreciated that three prisoners were
facing convictions, escaped from jail by devising a plan as simple
as taking out a 20 feet long iron pipe from a kitchen shed and
placing it on the wall of the jail for climbing over and escaping. It
was not an externally intelligent plan devised which with a
minimum of care and vigilance the jail staff could not have
anticipated and prevented. To begin with, why the fact of a
Page - 3 of 5
missing iron pipe from the shed of the kitchen not reported is not
clear. Further, the watch and ward staff Sri Ashu Kr. Jamatia
whose duty was to guard a particular watch tower, was absent
when this incident took place. The petitioner was in-charge of
Kendriya Sansodhanagar. He cannot escape his liability by simply
suggesting that it was a duty of the lower staff to guard the jail
and ensure against any escape of the inmates.
10. Coming to the question of the imposition of a cut in
pension, looking to the proved charges, the same cannot be stated
to be disproportionate, leave alone grossly disproportionate. The
cut in pension is not permanent but would operate only for a
period of 3(three) years.
................................."
[3] The petitioner first filed writ appeal against the said judgment,
withdrew it with a liberty to file a review petition and that is how this
review petition has been filed.
[4] Learned counsel Ms. R Purkayastha for the petitioner raised two
contentions :
(i) That on the date of the incident of the three convicts
escaping from the jail, the petitioner was not in charge. He was
attending a workshop and had handed over the charge to the
Deputy Jailor and (ii) that the Presenting Officer was examined
as a witness in the departmental inquiry which was contrary to
the Government of India instructions under CCS(CCA) Rules.
Page - 4 of 5
[5] She recollects having raised both these contentions while
conducting hearing of the writ petition and points out that these
contentions were not dealt with in the judgment. I am prepared to go back
her recollection. Despite this, I do not think the petitioner has made out a
case for review. Firstly, there was not even a finding in the departmental
proceedings that on the particular date when the incident took place the
petitioner was present, was in-charge and that is how he had exhibited
negligence in discharge of his duties. In the judgment dismissing the writ
petition also, what was observed was that the convicts escaped from the
jail by devising a plan which was as simple as taking out 20 feet long iron
pipe from a kitchen shed, placing it on the wall of the jail and climbing
over and escaping. It was observed that this was not a very complicated
plan and which with minimum of care and vigilance by the jail staff could
have been prevented. The petitioner as In-charge of the jail cannot escape
his liability by simply suggesting that it was a duty of the lower staff to
guard the jail and ensure against any of the inmates escaping.
[6] The contention that the Presenting Officer should not be a
witness in a departmental inquiry, may generally be a valid one. If the
Presenting Officer is also a witness, there is every possibility of his being
partisan in the departmental proceedings where he should otherwise be
Page - 5 of 5
impartial. However, in the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner
was not in a position to show anything from the report of the Inquiry
Officer or the order of the disciplinary authority that the evidence of the
Presenting Officer was in any manner utilised for holding the charge
against the petitioner as proof. In departmental proceedings, mere breach
of procedural rules would not result in vitiation of the proceedings unless
prejudice is caused to the delinquent which must be demonstrated.
In the result, review petition is dismissed. Pending application(s),
if any, also stands disposed of.
( AKIL KURESHI, CJ )
Sukehendu
