The Allahabad High Court set aside an order deducting 10% from the pension of a Jail Superintendent and observed that having loose control over the subordinate employees resulting into fleeing away of two prisoners cannot be said to be a misconduct. The Court held that no punishment could be awarded under Regulation 351-A of Civil Service Regulation.

The Petitioner approached the High Court, challenging an order imposing a deduction in the pension amount.

Referring to the judgment in Surendra Pandey Ex Deputy Jailer Vs. State of U.P. (2007), the Single Bench of Justice Neeraj Tiwari asserted, “In the present case too, the petitioner was charged with the allegation of having loose control over the subordinate employees resulting into fleeing away of two prisoners, which cannot be said misconduct and no punishment can be awarded under Regulation 351- A of CSR as decided by this Court in the matter of Surendra Pandey(Supra).”

Advocate Vikas Singh represented the Petitioner, while Central Standing Counsel represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Petitioner was appointed as Deputy Jailer by the U.P. Public Service Commission-respondent No. 3, and he joined his services on 09.05.1994. During the service of the petitioner as Jail Superintendent at Etawah, there was an allegation against him that two convicted prisoners escaped from the jail, and an inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. Thereafter, a charge sheet was issued in the year 2019. It was alleged that the petitioner had loose control over the subordinate officers, due to which they were also reluctant in security measures required in jail, resulting in the fleeing of two prisoners.

The petitioner superannuated in the year 2021, and thereafter, permission for the continuance of inquiry was granted under Rule 351-A of Civil Service Regulation(CSR). The departmental proceeding was concluded, and an order was passed for deduction of 15 per cent amount from the pension of the petitioner. Along with the petitioner, three officers, one Jailer and two Deputy Jailers, were also charge sheeted, but they were given the minor punishment of a warning/censure entry. However, this order was withdrawn, and the impugned order came to be passed, reducing the deduction of pension from 15 per cent to 10 percent for the period of three years. It was this order which was assailed in the present Petition.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that even after DG, Jail being informed about the poor condition of the jail by the petitioner, no action had been taken for proper safety. “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”, it said.

One of the arguments raised by the Petitioner was regarding discrimination in punishment given to the petitioner. Referring to the Provisions of the UP Jail Manual, the Bench said, “From the perusal of the same, 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. Very surprisingly, in the present case, they have been awarded very lesser punishment.” The Bench thus held that the case was one of absolute discrimination with the petitioner as he couldn’t be awarded higher punishment than other charged employees.

It was noticed that the petitioner was charged with the allegation of having loose control over the subordinate employees, resulting into the fleeing of two prisoners. The Bench held that this action couldn’t be said to be misconduct.

Thus, concluding that no punishment could be awarded to the petitioner, the Bench allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order. “It is directed that petitioner shall be paid the entire deducted amount of pension along with interest @ 9 % from the due date to the date of actual payment”, it ordered.

Cause Title: Raj Kishore Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Jail Administration And Reforms Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 2 Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:17496)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Vikas Singh,Akshay Kumar Singh,Mahendra Bahadur Singh,Palak Jawa,S M Singh Royekwar

Respondent: C.S.C.,Raj Kumar Upadhyaya

Click here to read/download Order


Allahabad High CourtJustice Neeraj Tiwari

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.