Delhi High Court Restores Increment Stoppage Penalty On Tihar Jail Superintendent Over Alleged Ill-Treatment Of Prisoners, Extortion

The Delhi High Court has restored the penalty of stoppage of two increments imposed on an Assistant Superintendent of Tihar Jail in 2005 over allegations of ill-treatment of jail inmates and extortion of money.

A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Manoj Jain allowed the plea filed by the Director General of Tihar Jail and set aside an order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal which had quashed orders of the Disciplinary and Appellate authorities.

Vide the impugned order, the CAT had also directed that the Assistant Superintendent would be entitled to all the consequential benefits in accordance with law.

In 2003, while the man was posted in Jail No. 1, complaints were filed by three undertrial prisoners through their counsels to the respective Trial Courts alleging ill-treatment and extortion of money. The complaints were forwarded to the Jail Authority by the Courts.

A chargesheet was issued against the official in 2004, along with a statement of imputation of misconduct. The Assistant Superintendent denied the allegations and an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the proceedings.

Upon completion of the inquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report in 2005 concluding that the charge framed against the officer stood proven on the basis of the testimony of an untertrial prisoner, the deposition of a Deputy Superintendent as well as the documents on record.

In November 2005, the Disciplinary Authority concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and imposed a penalty of stoppage of two increments in the time scale of pay, permanently, with cumulative effect and adversely affecting his pension.

The Appellate Authority dismissed his plea. However, he was granted relief by the CAT. The order was then challenged before the High Court by the Tihar Jail Director General.

Allowing the plea, the Bench noted that it cannot overlook the testimony of the undertrial prisoner who, in his testimony, clearly stated that he had given only the name of Assistant Superintendent as the person who had beaten him and demanded money.

The Court said that the UTP had specifically named the officer and no one else, which was a direct and unambiguous attribution which could not be ignored.

Further, the Bench said that even if the deposition of another jail official was disregarded on account of alleged hostility, the testimony of the UTP was sufficient to establish the charge on the standard of preponderance of probabilities applicable in departmental proceedings.

“We are therefore, of the opinion that the Impugned Order of the learned Tribunal suffers from a jurisdictional error in re-appreciating evidence and overlooking relevant material,” the Court said.

It added: “For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The Impugned Order dated 21.07.2008 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 1640/2007 is quashed, the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 07.11.2005, as upheld by the Appellate Authority, stands restored.”

Title: DIRECTOR GENERAL v. SANJEEV KUMAR

Click here to read order