WP/21998/2003 of DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF Vs TR.C.MANIKANDAN, II GRADE WAR- on 23 December 2005

COMMON ORDER

(ORDER of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM,J.)

Since the issue raised in both the writ petitions is oneand the same, they are being disposed of by the following commonorder.

2. Aggrieved by the common order of the Tamil NaduAdministrative Tribunal dated 21.10.2002 made in O.A.Nos.2710 of 2001and 2839 of 2001, the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Madurai,and the Superintendent of Prisons, Palayamkottai, have filed theabove writ petitions. Writ Petition No.21998 of 2003 relates toC.Manikandan, Grade II Warder and Writ Petition No.21999 of 2003relates to J.J.J. Milton, Grade II Warder.

3. The charge against both the petitioners is that C.Manikandan was in possession of cash of Rs.10,341.40 and J.J.J.Milton was in possession of 50 grams of ganja. Though C. Manikandanparticipated in the enquiry, Milton, after conveying his grievancethat he was not furnished with all the required documents, abstainedfrom the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report holdingthat the charge leveled against the delinquents was proved. Based onthe report of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority, viz.,Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Madurai, by order dated31.03.2001, dismissed both of them from service. Though there is aremedy by way of an appeal, the delinquents approached the Tribunalto vindicate their grievance. The Tribunal, after finding that thereis no evidence to connect the applicants with the contrabandarticles, viz., cash and ganja, and that the contrary finding of theEnquiry Officer is perverse, set aside the order of dismissal andordered reinstatement of the applicants with all monetary and servicebenefits, etc., Questioning the said common order, the DeputyInspector General of Prisons and the Superintendent of Prisons havefiled the present writ petitions.

4. Heard Mr. E. Sampath Kumar, learned Government Advocatefor the petitioners and Ms. Anna Mathew, learned counsel for thefirst respondent in both the writ petitions.

5. The only point for consideration in this writ petitionsis, whether the Tribunal is justified in arriving a conclusion thatthere is no evidence to connect the applicants with the contrabandarticles, viz., cash and ganja and setting aside the punishment ofdismissal?

6. We have already referred to the charge, viz., in so faras C. Manikandan is concerned, he was in possession of cash ofRs.10,431.40; whereas, J.J.J. Milton was in possession of 50 grams of

ganja. It is not in dispute that both of them were Grade II Warderin Central Prison, Palayamkottai. In the enquiry proceedings, theDepartment heavily relied on the evidence of AdditionalSuperintendent of Prisons-Rajendran and Jailer-Kannan. According tothem, on 14.03.2000, at about 06.15 a.m. search was conducted by theCommissioner of Police, Tirunelveli accompanied by the DeputyInspector General of Prisons, Madurai, the revenue authorities,viz., the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli, the Tahsildar,Palayamkottai and a team of police officers including the AssistantCommissioner, Tirunelveli City Police. During the search, it wasfound that C.Manikandan, Grade II Warder, was in possession ofRs.10,341.40 and other Grade II Warder J.J.J. Milton was inpossession of 50 grams ganja. It is their further case that the saidmoney and ganja were found in a wooden box. Their statement wasaccepted by the Enquiry Officer and based on which the DisciplinaryAuthority imposed a punishment of dismissal against both thedelinquents.

7. It is the case of the delinquents that the Jailauthorities, particularly, Additional Superintendent of Prisons andthe Jailer received confidential information regarding the proposedvisit of the higher officials on 14.03.2000 and in order to safeguard the real culprits and also to avoid bad reputation as well asin the interest of their own, they made a thorough search on theprisoners during the midnight of 13.03.2000 along with thedelinquents. It is their further case that in the course of search,they collected cash to the extent of 10,314.40 from the prisoners and50 grams ganja, which were kept in the wooden box. In other words,it is their definite case that neither the cash nor ganja belong tothem and they were not in possession of the same.

8. The Tribunal, analysed the Department witnesses, viz.,Rajendran and Kannan, and after perusing other materials,particularly final report relating to Crime No.74 of 2000, on thefile of Permalpuram Police Station in respect of the very sameincident, disbelieved their version. In this regard, it is relevantto note that after the inspection by the higher officials on theearly morning of 14.03.2000, and search and seizure of the inmates ofthe prison, the Inspector of Police, Perumalpuram, after thoroughinvestigation, submitted a final report stating that the case wasreferred as mistake of fact. The final report in Crime No.74 of 2000has been considered by the Tribunal. The final report is preparedand submitted by the Inspector of Police, Perumalpuram PoliceStation, in respect of Crime No.74 of 2000 registered on thecomplaint made by the Melapalayam Inspector by name Kanniappan underSections 20(b) NDPS Act and 102 Cr.P.C. It is also seen that eventhough the cases have been registered under these two sections, nospecified person has been made as accused in the First InformationReport. In the final report submitted by the Inspector of Police, Perumalpuram, all the contraband articles were reported to havebeen recovered from the 3[rd] block in the Jailer's room and the ganjaand amount were said to have been recovered from a wooden box kept inthe guard room. The following conclusion in the final report isrelevant, which reads as under.

"tHf;fpy; ifg;gw;wpa brhj;Jf;fspy; Fwpg;ghf fhh;L fhg;g[miwapy; ,Ue;J ifg;gw;wg;gl;l 50 fpuhk; f";rh. gzk;10314/40 igrh mitfis miwapy; cs;s kug;bgl;o jdpg;gl;lrpiw fhtyh;fSf;Fhpajhf bjhpatpy;iy/ mnj nghy;ifg;gw;wg;gl;l f";rh. gzk; 10.314/40 igrhit jdpg;gl;;lrpiwfhtyh;fsplkpUe;J ifg;gw;wtpy;iy/ rhl;rpfspd;thf;FK:y';fspy; ,Ue;Jk; bjspthf bjhpahjjhy;. ,t;tHf;fpid nky;eltof;if vLg;gJ rhj;jpaf;TW ,Ug;gjhfbjhpatpy;iy/ Mfnt ,t;tHf;fpdpy; nky; tprhuiziftplg;gLfpwJ vd;gij gzpt[ld; bjhptpj;Jf; bfhs;fpnwd."

9. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, the aboveconclusion of the Inspector of Police in the final report cannot beignored. As a matter of fact, the said conclusion was arrived aftera detailed and thorough investigation. In this regard, it isrelevant to note that it is the constant stand of Manikandan andMilton that all these articles were recovered from the prisonersduring the unofficial search made by Jailer Kannan with theassistance of Warders including Manikandan. According to thedelinquents, as said earlier, the object of the Jailer is to save thereal offenders and also to make the contrabands not available duringthe contemplated special raid by top special police officials on thenext day.

10. On going through the above mentioned final report andthe statements of Rajendran and Kannan, who were examined on the sideof the Department, and also taking note of the fact that theInspector of Police, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tahsildar,Palayamkottai, and Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli, thoughwere all examined in the enquiry, none of them have stated about thewooden box containing the cash amount and ganja, we are in agreementwith the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. The prisonauthorities are not expected to take a different stand one in thefinal report relating to Crime No.74 of 2000 and another inDepartmental proceedings.

11. Though the learned Government Advocate vehementlycontended that one of the defence witnesses viz., DW.12 himselfinformed that Manikandan was possessed with full of currencies in hishand, we are satisfied that, as rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, the Department failed to substantiate the allegation by placingacceptable evidence.

12. Though the learned Government Advocate argued that theTribunal has exceeded its limit in reappraising the evidence, we aresatisfied that in order to ascertain the truth and the claim made byboth parties, the Tribunal has rightly considered the materialsplaced before the Enquiry Officer and the definite stand taken by thedelinquent officials. We are satisfied that the Tribunal is fullyjustified in considering all the materials.

13. On going through the final report of the Inspector ofPolice, Perumalpuram, the evidence of the Departmental witnesses,viz., Rajendran and Kannan, and all other connected materials, we arein entire agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal,viz., that there is no acceptable evidence to connect the delinquentswith the cash and ganja recovered from the wooden box. We are alsoof the fact that the finding of the Enquiry Officer cannot besustained since it lacks acceptable evidence.

Under these circumstances, we do not find any error or infirmityor valid ground for interference; on the other hand, we are in entireagreement with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal.Consequently, both the writ petitions fail and the same aredismissed. No costs.

kh

Sd/Asst.Registrar

/true copy/

To

Sub Asst.Registrar

The RegistrarTamilnadu Administrative TribunalChennai.

+ One CC to Government Pleader SR.No.50721+ One CC to Mr.R.Vaigai, Advocate SR.No.50530

JE (CO)RSM/4.1.2006

W.P.Nos.21998&21999/03