Petitioner, a retired prisoner warder, challenged the confirmation of his punishment via Article 226, alleging victim non-party and procedural flaws. The Court noted retirement benefits were settled and found violence was warranted, dismissing the writ.
Writ of Certiorari and prayer to quash the impugned order dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 03 .10.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
Writ Petition No.15693 of 2008
D. Samiukannu .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Deputy Inspector General of prison,
Chennai – 600 008.
2. The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Vellore District.
3. The Accountant General ( A and E)
No.361, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 018. .. Respondents
( R3 impleaded as per Court Order dated 28/08/2008 made in
M.P.No. 3 of 2008 in W.P.No. 15693 of 2008.)
Prayer: This Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in relating to the proceeding of the 1st respondent in 4308/MU/2004 dated 30.04.2008 in confirming the order of the 2nd respondent in proceedings No.7499/PO-1/2004 dated 03.06.2004 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M. Muthappan For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mrs.Thangavadana Balakrishnan Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent 3 :Mr. V. Vijay shankar
The petitioner prays to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 1st respondent in 4308/MU/2004 dated 30.04.2008 in confirming the order of the 2nd respondent in proceedings No.7499/PO-1/2004 dated 03.06.2004 and quash the same.
background and had been confined for some offences due to coercion, force and compulsion and he would also submit that the impugned order was passed in a mechanical way. He would also contend that even though the petitioner was served with number of charges, all most all of them have been set aside by this Court consistently and if they were all had taken together, the malafide motive of the respondents/department would stand expose. The punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect has to be set aside. The petitioner would also submit as he was imposed with the punishment, the retirement
benefits was also not settled, which was due to him and not even paid any terminal benefits.
6.The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the petitioner was working as Grade II Warder at Central Prison, Vellore and on 04.05.2004, the petitioner had assaulted the TPDA Prisoner 4526 namely one Selvam with lati on his back, thigh and left eye brow. The act of the petitioner is against the prison rules. The above act of the petitioner caused problem to the prison administration due to the assembling of prisoners and the enraged prisoners were pacified and an untoward incident was averted by the staff. The injured prisoner was treated in the prison hospital by the prison doctor. Therefore, the petitioner was placed under suspension as per proceedings No. 7499/G1/2004, dated 04.05.2004 by the second respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner was dealt under the Rule 17 (b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules as per Memo No. 7499/G1/2004 dated 03.06.2004 for the misconduct of assault of TPDA Prisoner No. 4526 Selvam.
7.The learned Additional Government Pleader further submit that the Disciplinary Authority after considering the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the further representation of the petitioner, imposed the punishment of postponement of his next increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect in his Proc. No. 7499/G1/2004-1, dated 29.09.2004. Hence, the petitioner has preferred an appeal on 04.11.2004 before the first respondent. The first respondent after giving him an opportunity, has reduced the punishment to six months from one year in the appeal.
that direction petition and the same was dismissed as infructuous. As per the said order, he was paid the entire retirement benefits. Similarly on 10.09.2008, this Court also has dismissed the stay petition in M.P.No. 1 of 2008 recording that since the petitioner has already retired from service, the question of staying the punishment will not have any effect. Hence, the stay petition was also dismissed. The 3rd respondent was also impleaded as a party respondent in this writ petition vide order dated 10.09.2008 made in M.P.No. 3 of 2008.
Assistant Registrar(CS V)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
smn
To.
+1cc to Mr.M. Muthappan, Advocate sr.no.68401
Writ Petition No.15693 of 2008
nr 16/10/2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ of certiorari should be issued to quash the confirmation of punishment imposed on a retired prison officer for assaulting a prisoner?
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the quashing of the order of stoppage of increment?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
D. Samiukannu
The Deputy Inspector General of prison, Chennai
The Superintendent of Central Prison, Vellore District
The Accountant General ( A and E)
V. Bhavani Subbaroyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
