Justice B Pugalendhi observed that a prison officer had a duty to prevent the introduction of any prohibited articles to the prisoners. In the present case, the court noted that by serving Ganja to the prisoner, the warden had committed a grave misconduct and violation of discipline expected from an officer. The court thus held that the dismissal from service was not disproportionate.

“Moreover, every prison officer has a duty to prevent, the introduction and giving to prisoners, of any prohibited articles, as per Rule 134(2) of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules 1983. However, the petitioner in this case, who has a duty to prevent the introduction of contraband, has himself supplied ganja to convict prisoners. Certainly, this is a grave misconduct and violation of discipline, expected from a prison officer. Therefore, the punishment of dismissal from service, cannot be said to disproportionate and warranting the interference of this Court,” the court said.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Aashik Mohammed, who was working as Grade-II warden in the Madurai Central Prison. On June 19, 2024, a special team conducted a surprise inspection and seized 10 grams of Ganja from a prisoner. The prisoner said that he received the Ganja from Aashik when he was employed on para duty at the Bakery Unit in the prison.

A preliminary enquiry was conducted, and the petitioner gave a statement that he visited the house of a convict prisoner along with another Warden and consumed alcohol while the convict prisoner was on escort parole. The petitioner also admitted that he received a sum of Rs 5000 through GPay from a friend of the convict prisoner.

After preliminary enquiry, the petitioner was kept under suspension for violation of Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules and Tamil Nadu Prison Rules and was issued a charge memo. After enquiry, the superintendent of prison passed the order dismissing him from service. Though the petitioner appealed, the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services confirmed the order of punishment. Hence, the petitioner approached the High Court.

The petitioner argued that the petitioner from whom the Ganja was allegedly seized was not examined during the disciplinary proceedings which was fatal to the entire disciplinary proceedings. It was also argued that on the day when the Ganja was allegedly provided to the prisoner, the petitioner was on leave and thus it was not possible for him to provide Ganja.

The petitioner also argued that the enquiry officer himself had cross-examined the witnesses and such a procedure is unknown to disciplinary proceedings. He thus argued that the entire disciplinary proceedings stood vitiated due to violation of principles of natural justice.

The Government, on the other hand, argued that the petitioner had attended duty on the alleged date, which was proved by the para register and the in and out register. It was also submitted that the petitioner himself had admitted to having visited the house of a convict prisoner and some transactions had taken place between him and the prisoner's friend.

With respect to allegations of violation of natural justice principles, it was submitted that the petitioner was permitted to peruse documents during enquiry and he had also acknowledged the same.

The court noted that the petitioner had admitted to having consumed alcohol with a convict prisoner and having received money from his friend. The court also noted that the petitioner was permitted to peruse the documents and had cross-examined the witnesses on the side of the department. The court concluded that the petitioner was provided with an opportunity to present his defence.

The court also observed that as per the decision of the Supreme Court, in the absence of a presenting officer, the enquiry officer could put questions to the witnesses for clarification, wherever necessary, and such proceedings cannot be termed as unfair and there was no violation of principles of natural justice.

The court thus concluded that there was nothing to interfere with the order of punishment and dismissed the petition.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel for M/s. Ajmal Associates

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. S. Sivasubramanian, Government Advocate

Case Title: M. Aashik Mohammed v The Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 467

Case No: WP(MD) NO. 6083 of 2025