In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has observed that loss of control over subordinates does not amount to "misconduct" under the Civil Services Regulations. The Court, therefore, set aside the deduction of 10% pension for three years that had been imposed on a Jail Superintendent after two prisoners escaped from jail.
The judgment came in light of Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations, which allows pension deduction only for grave misconduct or pecuniary loss to the government. The Court clarified that merely failing to control subordinates does not fall under this category.
Background of the Case
The petitioner was appointed as Deputy Jailer by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission in 1994. Following his promotion, he took charge as Jail Superintendent, Etawah on 1st July 2017.
Later, allegations were made against him after two convicted prisoners escaped from the jail premises. A departmental inquiry was launched, and a charge sheet was issued on 11th November 2019, accusing the petitioner of failing to control subordinate officers, which allegedly led to laxity in jail security.
The inquiry report was filed on 30th July 2020, and even after the petitioner retired on 30th November 2021, the inquiry continued with necessary approval as per Regulation 351-A.
Following the inquiry, an order was passed deducting 15% from the petitioner’s pension, while the Jailer and Deputy Jailers received only a minor censure as punishment.
Challenging this, the petitioner approached the High Court. During the case, the State withdrew the earlier punishment and directed the matter to Respondent No. 3 for reconsideration based on the Allahabad High Court's decision in Surendra Pandey v. State of U.P.
Later, a fresh order dated 21st June 2023 directed 10% pension deduction for three years, which again was challenged by the petitioner in the Allahabad High Court.
Justice Neeraj Tiwari, while hearing the case, clearly stated:
“It is apparently clear that the 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.”
The Court highlighted that the petitioner had written multiple letters addressing poor jail conditions, including issues such as non-functional CCTV cameras and shortage of security personnel, but no corrective action was taken by higher authorities.
“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,” the Court held.
The Court further noted that the UP Jail Manual makes it clear that Jailer and Deputy Jailer have a greater responsibility in ensuring implementation of security measures. However, the punishment given to the petitioner was more severe, making it discriminatory and unjustified.
On the core issue — whether loss of supervision qualifies as “misconduct” under Regulation 351-A, the Court relied heavily on the precedent set in Surendra Pandey v. State of U.P.
In that case, the Allahabad High Court had held that:
“Under Regulation 351-A of Civil Services Regulations, the Governor may withhold or withdraw pension, either in full or in part, permanently or temporarily, only if the employee is found guilty of grave misconduct or has caused pecuniary loss to the Government after conducting a departmental proceeding.”
The Court in the current case observed that the facts were similar to the Surendra Pandey case, and therefore the petitioner could not be penalized under Regulation 351-A.
Based on these observations, the Allahabad High Court set aside the 10% pension deduction order and provided relief to the Jail Superintendent.
The Court made it clear that loss of control over subordinates, leading to escape of prisoners, does not amount to grave misconduct, and thus cannot attract pension cuts under Regulation 351-A.
Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside. It was directed that petitioner be paid the entire deducted sum with 9% interest along with all consequential benefits.
Case Title: Raj Kishore Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Jail Administration And Reforms Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 2 Others [WRIT A No. - 6716 of 2024]
