The Delhi High Court reinstated a penalty imposed in 2005 on an Assistant Superintendent of Tihar Jail for alleged ill-treatment of undertrial prisoners and extortion of money. The decision came from a Division Bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Manoj Jain. The penalty in question involved the stoppage of two increments in his pay scale, permanently, with cumulative effect, adversely impacting his pension.
The background of the matter dates to 2003 when the Assistant Superintendent was posted in Jail No. 1 and several undertrial prisoners, via their counsels, filed complaints alleging that he had subjected them to mistreatment and extorted money. These complaints were forwarded by the trial courts to the jail authorities. In 2004, a chargesheet was issued against the official, outlining the imputation of misconduct. The official denied the charges. Subsequently, an Inquiry Officer was appointed to investigate the allegations.
The inquiry proceeded, and by 2005 the Inquiry Officer submitted a report finding that the charges were proven based on the testimony of an undertrial prisoner, statements from a Deputy Superintendent, and documentation on record. Following the report, on 7 November 2005, the Disciplinary Authority upheld the findings and imposed the penalty of stoppage of two increments permanently. The Appellate Authority dismissed his appeal against this penalty. However, later on, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) quashed those orders and directed that the Assistant Superintendent be given all consequential benefits in accordance with law.
The proceedings before the High Court involved an appeal by the Director General of Tihar Jail seeking to set aside the CAT’s order which had in effect nullified the penalty. The High Court examined the evidence, giving weight especially to the undertrial prisoner’s testimony, which named the Assistant Superintendent explicitly as the one who beat him and demanded money. The Court observed that even disregarding the Deputy Superintendent’s testimony due to alleged hostility, the undertrial prisoner’s account, combined with documentary records, was sufficient to establish the allegations on the standard of preponderance of probabilities applicable in departmental disciplinary proceedings.
The Bench held that the CAT had committed a jurisdictional error by re-evaluating the evidence and overlooking material that supported the disciplinary authority’s decision. It found that the trial courts’ complaints, the inquiry report, and the disciplinary proceedings all followed due process. Accordingly, the High Court quashed the CAT’s order dated 21 July 2008 in O.A. No. 1640/2007 and restored the penalty as originally imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority.
The order thus restores the stoppage of the two increments permanently, with cumulative effect, as well as the adverse pensionary consequences attached to the penalty.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.