Losing Control Over Subordinates Is Not Misconduct: Allahabad High Court Grants Relief To Jail Superintendent

While setting aside order deducting 10% pension of the Jail Superintendent for 3 years on account of misconduct, the Allahabad High Court held that misconduct is different from carelessness, or inaction and therefore, no punishment could have been given under Regulation 351-A of Civil Service Regulation.

It was held that under the said regulation, pension can be withheld due to grave misconduct or having caused pecuniary loss to the government, which does not include losing control subordinates leading to prisoners escaping.

Absolving the Jail Superintendent of misconduct, Justice Neeraj Tiwari held that

“it is apparently clear that main role in the security of the jail is assigned to other subordinate officers and the role of Superintendent is only supervisory in nature. Other charged employees viz. Jailer and Deputy Jailer are having bigger liability for execution of orders so issued by the petitioner.”

Factual Background

Petitioner was appointed as Deputy Jailer by the U.P. Public Service Commission in 1994. Post promotion, petitioner joined on 01.07.2017 as Jail Superintendent, Etawah. Subsequently, there was an allegation against him that two convicted prisoners escaped from jail. An inquiry was initiated against the petitioner, with charge sheet issued on 11.11.2019.

As per said charge sheet, it was alleged that petitioner does not have control over the subordinate officers, due to which they do not undertake security measures required which resulted in the two prisoners escaping. Inquiry report was submitted on 30.07.2020.

Petitioner was superannuated on 30.11.2021 but the inquiry continued with permission as mandated under Regulation 351-A of Civil Service Regulation('CSR'). The departmental proceeding was concluded and order was passed for deduction of 15% amount from the pension of the petitioner. The Jailer and two Deputy Jailers were given minor punishment of censure.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged order dated 11.01.2022. During pendency, the State withdrew the impugned order and referred matter to respondent no. 3 for a decision keeping mind the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Surendra Pandey Ex Deputy Jailer Vs. State of U.P.. Resultantly, the petition was disposed of. The petitioner filed subsequent petition which was allowed with direction to respondent no. 3 to take a decision within 6 weeks.

By order dated 21.06.2023, an amount of 10 percent was directed to be deducted from the petitioner's pension for 3 years. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the High Court.

High Court Verdict

The Court noted that there is no denial in the counter affidavit of the jail being in poor condition with the CCTV camera not working and lower number of security officers being posted there. It observed that even though the petitioner had written several letters communicating these facts, no action was taken to address said issues.

“Therefore, petitioner cannot be held responsible for any inaction and laxity in duty coupled with this fact that he has written several letters for improvement of condition of jails, which has not been taken care of,” held the Court.

The Court observed that as per provisions of the U.P. Jail Manual, the Jailer and Deputy Jailer have higher liability for execution of orders issued by the petitioner. However, they were given minor punishment compared to the petitioner. It held that such difference in punishment was discriminatory and that petitioner could not have been awarded higher punishment in any eventuality.

On the point of lack of supervision whether under the purview of misconduct, and thus being covered by Regulation 351-A of CSR, the Court relied on Surendra Pandey Ex Deputy Jailer Vs. State of U.P., where the Allahabad High Court had held that under Regulation 351-A of CSR, the Governor can withhold pension temporarily or permanently if, after departmental proceedings, the accused is found guilty of grave misconduct, or causing pecuniary loss either during his service or re-employment after retirement. However, losing control over subordinates resulting in fleeing of convicts was not a misconduct punishable under the Regulation 351-A.

The Court held that due to similarity of facts and the ratio laid down in Surendra Pandey, no punishment could be awarded to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside. It was directed that petitioner be paid the entire deducted sum with 9% interest along with all consequential benefits.

Case Title: Raj Kishore Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Jail Administration And Reforms Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 2 Others [WRIT A No. - 6716 of 2024]

Click Here To Read/Download Order