1 WPS No. 6186 of 2017 2025:CGHC:1005 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6186 of 2017  Bhupendra Kumar Dhruve S/o Shri Panch Ram Dhruve, aged about 42 years, R/o Near White House, Anand Nagar, Uslapur, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Working as Jail Guard and Posted at Central Jail Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Home (Jail), Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Director General, Jail and Correction Services, Chhattisgarh Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner :- Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate. For State-Respondents :- Mr. Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 07/01/2025 1. This writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 18.11.2016 (Annexure P/3) by which the Appellate ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.01.10 11:43:03 +0530 2 WPS No. 6186 of 2017 Authority, Director General, Prisons and Correctional Services, i.e. respondent No.2, has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein affirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority/respondent No.3 dated 13.06.2016 imposing punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. 2. The petitioner was subjected to departmental proceeding for having committed misconduct on 13.08.2015 when the petitioner was performing his duties as Jail Guard at District Jail, Raigarh, between 10:00 am to 2:00 pm, one of the accused Rakesh Yadav, under trial prisoner, had absconded and, therefore, the petitioner failed to discharge his duties in accordance with the standard fixed for the Jail Guard in the Jail Manual. Thereafter, Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail Bilaspur conducted the departmental inquiry against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification and Appeal) Rules 1966 and on finding the misconduct proved on the part of the petitioner, imposed the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect by order dated 13.06.2016 (Annexure P/2) against which the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority by order dated 18.11.2016 (Annexure 3 WPS No. 6186 of 2017 P/3) dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner finding no merit and thereafter, the petitioner preferred the second appeal before respondent No.1 herein which was also dismissed as not maintainable against which this writ petition has been preferred. 3. Mr. 3. Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the inquiry officer vide his report dated 14.05.2016 (Annexure P/5) has clearly mentioned that the Jail Superintendent of the District Jail, Raigarh and other higher authorities were already aware that the District Jail, Raigarh was not equipped with the sufficient number of jail guards and the petitioner was asked to look after 750 prisoners and they were also aware of the fact that the sewer/drain outlet through which the under trial prisoner Rakesh Yadav absconded from the Jail was also in a dilapidated condition. In view of the aforesaid finding recorded by the inquiry officer, the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect of the petitioner is liable to be set aside. 4. Mr. Amit Buxy, learned State counsel, would support the impugned order and submit that the disciplinary authority after finding misconduct on the part of the petitioner, has 4 WPS No. 6186 of 2017 rightly imposed the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect upon the petitioner and which has rightly been affirmed by the Appellate Authority. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. It is not in dispute that in the duly constituted departmental proceedings, the petitioner was subjected to charge-sheet that while he was on duty as a jail guard on 13.08.2015 between 10:00 am to 2:00 pm, one of the under trial prisoner Rakesh Yadav absconded from the jail. However, at this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the relevant part of the inquiry report dated 14.05.2016 which states as under:- " अधी्ቌक जिला ला रा यगढ़ एवं अन्य वंरिरा्቗ अजिधीक रिराय क यह मा लामा था क गदी ना ला क निनाक श ቛኋ रा रा ह गय ह! औरा उनाक पा स स&रा्ቌ क दृनि( स पाय ्቎ स्टॉ,फ नाह था पा&रा ला पारा एक ्ቚहरा क एक समाय मा/ ቐ኏टॉ लाग ना वं 750 बंनिदीय क खा ना क जिलाए वं ्ቑ स बं हरा राहना एक ्ቚहरा क सभी बंदी क उपारा निनागरा ना राखाना सभीवं नाह था । इस वंह स बंदी क फरा रा हना क जिलाए पाय ्቎ समाय निमाला ।" 7. A careful perusal of the inquiry report would show that the concerned sewer/drain outlet through which the under trial prisoner Rakesh Yadav absconded was in a dilapidated 5 WPS No. 6186 of 2017 condition; sufficient number of the jail guard were not available and the petitioner was asked to keep watch over the 750 under trial prisoners. However, the petitioner had already informed the Superintendent of Jail, District Jail, Raigarh and the other higher authorities about the dilapidated condition of the sewer/drain outlet from which the under trial prisoner absconded. 8. Considering the finding recorded by the jail authorities; condition of the sewer/drain outlet which was in dilapidated condition which the petitioner has already informed to the Superintendent of Jail, District Jail, Raigarh and the other higher authorities prior to the date on which the under trial prisoner Rakesh Yadav absconded i.e. 13.08.2015 and also considering the fact the petitioner was the only jail guard who was keeping his vigil over 750 under trial prisoners and further the District Jail, Raigarh was equipped with insufficient number of jail guards, I deem it appropriate to grant punishment of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect to the petitioner instead of punishment of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect. 6 WPS No. 6186 of 2017 9. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein above, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit