Mahesh Ram Kaiwart Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

SHYNA AJAY

¶4

Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 1476 of 2023

¶7

Reserved On : 17.03.2026 Pronounced On : 16.04.2026

¶8

Mahesh Ram Kaiwart S/o Late Shri Baisakhu Ram Kaiwart, Aged About 64 Years, Retired Head Warder, District Jail Rajnandgaon, Residence- Jeevan Colony Back Of Barafani Dham Temple, Police Station Basantpur, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Home (Jail), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - The Jail and Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Through The Director General Prisons, Jail Road Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

3 - The Jail Superintendent, Central Jail Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

(Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery)

¶16

2

¶17

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arpit Agarwal, Panel Lawyer

¶18

SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶19

C A V Order

¶20

Being aggrieved by the punishment order dated 12.9.2011, whereby a penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect was imposed, the Enquiry Report dated 29.7.2011 as well as the Appellate Order dated 4.1.2023, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

¶21

It is contended by the petitioner that the Disciplinary Authority, without conducting a proper departmental enquiry in accordance with law, penalised the petitioner. The enquiry was conducted in violation of the procedure prescribed under Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (in short “the Rules, 1966”), particularly ignoring the requirement for submission of written briefs. Furthermore, the findings are perverse as the charges were not proved in accordance with Rule 212 and Rule 217 of the Jail Manual; notwithstanding this failure of proof, the impugned order dated 12.9.2011 of punishment was passed. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal; however, the Appellate Authority did not properly appreciate the relevant material available on record. Resultantly, vide order dated 4.1.2023, the Appellate Authority affirmed the order dated 12.9.2011, without due application of mind and thereby, dismissing the appeal.

¶22

3

¶23

It is further contended by the petitioner that in the earlier round of litigation, he has challenged the order of punishment as well as the prior appellate order dated 24.4.2012 before this Court in WPS No.4236/2012, in which, this Court vide order dated 23.3.2022, while quashing the appellate order dated 24.4.2012, remitted the matter to the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal afresh in accordance with law, keeping in mind the provisions contained under Rule 27(2) of the Rules, 1966 without considering the comment of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg. However, after remand, the Appellate Authority did not consider the specific direction issued by this Court and passed the impugned order dated 4.1.2023, dismissing the appeal once again.

¶24

The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs in the petition:

¶25

10.1 To call for entire records pertaining to the petitioner's case from the respondents for kind perusal.

¶26

10.2 To set aside the impugned appellate order dated 04.01.2023 (Annexure P/9).

¶27

10.3 To set aside the impugned penalty imposing order dated 12.09.2011 (Annexure P/5) and enquiry report dated 29.07.2011 (Annexure P/4).

¶28

10.4 To direct to respondents to pay the petitioner all consequential benefits including the entire salary, emoluments etc. for the period that were affected due to imposition of major penalty as also

¶29

4

¶30

revised pension alongwith 10% p.a. interest as also to repay amount recovered from petitioner alongwith interest @10% p.a. in the interest of justice.

¶31

10.5 To direct the respondents to pay to the petitioner cost of litigation.

¶32

10.6 To grant any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned penalty was imposed by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg, However, as per Rule 212 of the Jail Manual, the competent Disciplinary Authority for initiating action against a Head Warder is the Superintendent of Jail (Headquarters). He would refer to an order dated 13.8.2024 passed by this Court in WPS No.2578/2024 (Kamlesh Verma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others). In the said case, the Court quashed a similar penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, holding that Regulation 214 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations does not provide for infliction of such penalty. Furthermore, the mandatory requirement of submissions of brief was not followed in the present case. This omission is in violation of the principles of nature justice, thereby vitiating the entire enquiry. He submits that Rule 212 of the Jail Manual enumerates the duties assigned to Head Warders. In the present case, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are not in consonance with Rule 212 of the

¶34

5

¶35

Jail Manual. As such, the charges levelled were in violation of Rule 217 of the Jail Manual. To buttress his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance upon the judgments rendered in the matters of Naba Kanta Kalita Vs. Union of India , reported in (2016) 2 Gauhati Law Reports 77 and State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Prakash Singh reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 891 . He lastly submits that since the charges were not proved in accordance with the prescribed legal procedure, the entire departmental proceedings vitiate and are liable to be quashed.

¶36

Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with law. He submits that a show cause notice was duly served, a charge sheet was issued and the petitioner was subsequently afforded a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner arises from an unfortunate death of a prisoner Shrawan S/o Mangal Lodhi, within the jail premises. After the incident, a Magisterial Enquiry was instituted, the report of which prima facie held the petitioner and one Chain Singh (Circle Incharge) responsible for a lapse in security in the jail campus, resulting in the aforementioned incident. Aggrieved by the punishment order dated 12.9.2011, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was subsequently dismissed vide order dated 24.4.2012. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing WPS No.4236/2012. This Court vide order dated 23.3.2022, set-aside the appellate order and remitted the matter

¶37

6

¶38

to the Appellate Authority with a direction to pass appropriate orders in accordance with Rule 27(2) of the Rules, 1966, without considering the comment of Superintendent of Jail, Durg. He submits that the Appellate Authority, after a fresh examination of the evidence, came to a conclusion that the petitioner, holding the post of Head Warder, does not have control over the subordinate Warder, which led to the above incident. After remand of the matter, the Appellate Authority passed a reasoned order dated 4.1.2023, rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. He also submits that a full-fledged departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with law, wherein the petitioner has been afforded due opportunity of hearing. Under the Jail Manual, considering the sensitive nature of jail administration, even a minor dereliction of duties disentitles a delinquent from continuing in service. The punishment imposed is reasonable and proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, which does not warrant any interference.

¶39

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition with utmost circumspection.

¶40

From a bare perusal of the charges levelled against the petitioner, it is clear that the petitioner was officiating as Head Warder in Central Jail, Durg, on 24.1.2011, during the shift spanning from 10:AM to 2:00 PM. During these duty hours, an incident of marpeat occurred within Barrack No.6 of Block II, wherein certain inmates committed marpeat, during the course of which one prisoner namely Shrawan S/o Mangal Lodhi sustained fatal

¶41

7

¶42

injuries and subsequently succumbed to the same. Since the said incident took place during the shift of the petitioner, he was found to be negligent in discharge of his duties, which is in violation of Rule 217 of the Jail Manual. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. Initially, Balmiki Dhruv, Assistant Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and A.R. Kunjam, Assistant Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg was appointed as the Presenting Officer. Since both the Enquiry Officer as well as the Presenting Officer were also cited as Government witnesses, in their places one AK Bajpayee, Assistant Jail Superintendent was appointed as Enquiry Officer and one Mukesh Kushwaha, Assistant Jail Superintendent was appointed as the Presenting Officer. The enquiry concluded with the finding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were found to be proved. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect. During the enquiry, the petitioner demanded certain documents and the same were supplied to him. The petitioner was also given opportunity to submit a representation within a period of three days with the condition that failure to do so would result in an exparte decision. However, instead of filing representation, again, the petitioner sought certain documents and also requested permission to visit the concerned District Collector in this regard. The aforesaid request remained pending as it was neither granted nor refused before the punishment was imposed against the

¶43

8

¶44

petitioner. A Magisterial Enquiry was also conducted before issuance of a charge sheet and the said enquiry report was filed on 20.6.2011 subsequent to the date of the charge sheet. The postdated Magisterial Enquiry Report was not supplied to the petitioner. However, the said Magisterial Enquiry Report was duly considered by the Enquiry Officer. According to the petitioner, nonsupply of the said Enquiry Report and relying upon the same by the Enquiry Officer has caused prejudice to the petitioner’s case, as a proper opportunity of hearing was not granted to the petitioner. Though the petitioner is mainly harping upon this aspect, but in order to substantiate this ground, he did not adduce any evidence during the Departmental Enquiry to demonstrate as to how and in what manner the absence of the said document prejudiced his defence, particularly in light of his claim that he was allegedly denied the opportunity to contest the charges.

¶45

Admittedly, the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to participate in the domestic enquiry and was duly supplied with certain documents requested by him. However, during the final stage of the domestic enquiry, the petitioner was directed to submit a representation within a period of three days, failing which, the proceedings were to be concluded ex-parte. Instead of availing such opportunity, the petitioner again demanded certain documents. Subsequently, the concerned Jail Superintendent proceeded to impose a major penalty i.e. withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect.

¶46

9

¶47

Moreover, a Magisterial Enquiry was conducted by the State Government, wherein also the petitioner was found guilty.

¶48

The Head Warder bears an administrative responsibility for any untoward incidents occurring during his duty hours and is held accountable for them. The petitioner did not show any sufficient ground causing prejudice to him or adversely affecting him, resulting from the non-supply of the Magisterial Enquiry Report. The petitioner, during the course of the enquiry, never requested a copy of the Magisterial Enquiry Report, despite having requested and received other documents. Moreover, it is manifest that mere non-supply of the Magisterial Enquiry Report, did not, in any manner, caused prejudice to the petitioner’s case.

¶49

So far as the non-applicability of the provisions contained in Rules 212 and 217 of the Jail Manual is concerned, it is evident that these provisions prescribe specific duties of Head Warders. Under Rule 212 (R), the Head Warder is mandated to maintain discipline through regular inspections, supervision and timely reporting to higher officials. Furthermore, Rule 212(S) stipulates that the Head Warder is responsible for searching prisoners for prohibited articles and ensuring they are properly secured behind bars by engaging proper lock mechanisms. However, the subject incident shows a clear failure to discharge these specific duties, which led to the unprecedented lapse in security and the resulting fatality. Further, the provisions of Rule 217 are equally relevant in this case. This rule mandates that the Head Warder must promptly report the breach of any discipline to the Deputy Superintendent

¶50

10

¶51

of Prison. In the instant matter, the failure to report the growing unrest or the subsequent incident, is in violation of this statutory duty. The non-compliance with Rule 217, coupled with the lapses under Rule 212 of the Jail Manual, strengthens the finding of negligence against the petitioner.

¶52

In the matter of the State of Punjab Vs. Nachhattar Singh (dead) Through LR reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 901 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that mere non-supply of the documents which may not have resulted any prejudice caused to the employee, the order passed by the disciplinary authority cannot be set-aside. The relevant portion of the order reads as under :

¶53

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and considering the reasoning given by the High Court, we are of the opinion that as such the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is unsustainable. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has set aside the order passed by the disciplinary authority solely on the ground that some documents were not supplied to the delinquent. However, it is required to be noted that as such there is no finding that nonsupply of some documents ha resulted into any prejudice caused to the delinquent-employee. Mere non-supply of the documents which may not have resulted any prejudice caused to the employee, the order passed by the disciplinary authority cannot be set aside.

¶54

11

¶55

Reverting to the facts of the present case, in light of the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment, it is quite vivid that this case involves a Domestic Enquiry along with a Magisterial Enquiry regarding death of a prisoner during the petitioner’s duty hours. The petitioner did not demand the Magisterial Enquiry Report on previous occasions. It was only after conclusion of the Domestic Enquiry, when the petitioner was directed to file representation, he sought the said report and this cannot be said to be a bonafide request. The petitioners have failed to show any prejudice caused to him by non-supply of the Magisterial Enquiry Report. Apart from the Magisterial Enquiry Report, all other documents requested by the petitioner were supplied to him. He was afforded a fair opportunity of hearing during the course of enquiry and thereafter, the punishment order has been passed, which was ultimately affirmed by the Appellate Authority.

¶56

For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents have not committed any illegality while imposing punishment upon the petitioner, even in the absence of such representation. The petitioner had ample opportunity to seek the aforesaid document at the earlier stages of the enquiry. His decision to seek the same at the belated stage, when he was directed to file representation, appears to be an attempt to delay the proceedings by raising a frivolous ground of denial of reasonable opportunity. Under these circumstances, the petitioner cannot get benefit from his own inaction. While learned counsel

¶57

12

¶58

for the petitioner has relied upon Naba Kanta Kalita (supra) and Ram Prakash Singh (supra) in support of his submissions, the facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable and therefore, these authorities are of no help to the petitioner.

¶59

In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no good or sufficient ground to interfere with either the impugned order dated 12.9.2011, whereby punishment was imposed upon the petitioner or the subsequent Appellate Order dated 4.1.2023. Furthermore, this Court observes no procedural or legal infirmity in the Enquiry Report warranting judicial intervention.

¶60

The Petition being devoid of merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/-

¶61

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶62

Shyna Ajay

Mahesh Ram Kaiwart v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Ram Kaiwart v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mangal Prasad Kaushal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Kumar Kamar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Daman Kumar Luniya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

A. K. Banjare Vs Union of India

Salik Ram Vs Union of India

Hitesh Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh