Prison warden’s dismissal upheld after court finds he supplied ganja to inmates

The petitioner, a Grade-II Warden at Central Prison, Madurai, was charged after a surprise inspection recovered 10 grams of ganja from a prisoner, who stated that the petitioner had supplied it.

Following an inquiry under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the third respondent dismissed the petitioner; the second respondent dismissed his appeal.

The petitioner challenged both orders, alleging, among other things, that the prisoner was not examined, the inquiry relied on preliminary-enquiry material, and the inquiry officer acted as the presenting officer.

Whether the disciplinary findings and proceedings were vitiated by lack of evidence or breach of natural justice, including the non-examination of the prisoner and reliance on preliminary-enquiry material.

Whether the inquiry was unfair because no presenting officer was appointed and the inquiry officer questioned witnesses.

Whether dismissal from service was disproportionate to the established misconduct.

Judicial review of departmental proceedings is limited; a court may interfere where findings are perverse, natural justice or statutory procedure has been violated, or punishment is so disproportionate that it shocks the court’s conscience.

Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules provided the disciplinary procedure invoked in this case.

Rules 146 and 147 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983 prohibit prison officers from cultivating undue familiarity with prisoners and from having unauthorised dealings or intercourse with prisoners’ friends or relatives; Rule 134(2) imposes a duty to prevent prohibited articles from being introduced or given to prisoners.

In Mulchandani Electrical and Radio Industries Ltd. v. Workmen, (1975) 4 SCC 731, the Supreme Court held that an inquiry officer’s questions for clarification, followed by an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, do not by themselves make an inquiry unfair.

The Court found material supporting the findings: the prisoner’s statement identifying the petitioner as the source of the ganja, prison records placing the petitioner on duty on the relevant date, the petitioner’s admissions concerning the visit and money received, the other warden’s statement, and G-Pay records.

It also found that the petitioner had perused documents, submitted explanations, and cross-examined a departmental witness, and therefore had an opportunity to present his defence.

Applying Mulchandani, the Court held that the inquiry officer’s questioning of witnesses did not, without more, establish unfairness, particularly where the petitioner could cross-examine them.

The admitted dealings with a convict and the alleged supply of ganja were serious breaches of the duties and restrictions imposed on prison officers; the Court therefore found no basis to disturb the dismissal as disproportionate.

It dismissed the writ petition and declined to interfere with the disciplinary and appellate orders.