Proportionate punishment for proven negligence enabling a convict’s escape warrants no interference.

The petitioner, a prison warden assigned to the main gate of Central Prison, Dharwad, was charged with negligence after a convict escaped on 16 August 2012.

Following a departmental inquiry that found the charge proved, the disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of postponement of two increments with effect on future increments and directed that the suspension period be treated as such.

The appellate authority dismissed his appeal, and the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dismissed his application challenging the penalty.

He then sought relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

The High Court recorded that the petitioner was not at the main-gate entrance when the convict escaped.

The disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Rules 11 and 13 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957

The Court considered the inquiry findings, the disciplinary and appellate orders, and the Tribunal’s assessment of the evidence and penalty. It cited no precedent or separately articulated standard of judicial review; its decision turned on whether the record disclosed an error warranting interference and whether the penalty was proportionate

The Court accepted that the petitioner was assigned to the prison’s main gate and found that he was not present at the entrance when the convict escaped, constituting negligence in the discharge of his duty.

It noted that an inquiry had been conducted, the petitioner had received the inquiry report and an opportunity to respond, and the disciplinary authority had considered his explanation before imposing the penalty.

The Tribunal had likewise considered the evidence and concluded that the penalty was proportionate to the charge; the High Court found no error in the impugned orders that justified its intervention.

It dismissed the writ petition and disposed of any pending applications.