Judgment :- The Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records relating to the proceedings of the respondent in No.6417/PO4/04-5 dated 210. 2004 and quash the same and consequently to direct the respondent to refund the recovered amount and consequently to award all consequential benefits including the refund of recovered amount. 2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:- The writ petitioner entered into the prison service on 5. 1984 as Grade-II Warder. He was posted at Central Prison, Coimbatore. In March 2002, he was transferred to Tiruppur Sub Jail. While he was working at Tiruppur from 3. 2004, there was no regular Superintendent. Hence, the Jail Superintendent at Avinashi was posted as in-charge Superintendent, Tiruppur Sub Jail. According to the petitioner, there are 10 lock up cells in the Sub Jail and 60 remand prisoners. In the 7th lock up cell there were 7 prisoners. According to the petitioner, in the absence of a regular Superintendent for Sub Jail, the Chief Head Warder is in full charge of the affairs of the Sub Jail. On 33. 2004, petitioner states that he was on duty from 3.00 pm to 6.00 pm and left the Sub Jail at 6.30 pm. The next person who came into duty is one Subramani, Grade-II Warder. He was in-charge between 6.00 pm to 9.00 pm and thereafter one Arukutty, Grade-II Warder was on duty from 9.00 pm to 12.00 midnight. According to the petitioner, he handed over the charge to the said Subramani, Grade-II Warder in the presence of the superiors. Petitioners next turn of duty was between 6.00 am to 9.00 am on the next day (i.e.) 4. 2004. On 4. 2004 at 5.50 am, petitioner came to Sub Jail for reporting duty and he was informed that about 10.00 pm on 33. 2004 two remand prisoners had escaped from the 7th lock up cell by pushing out the rusted iron plates fitted on the base of the door. For this incident, petitioner was suspended on 4. 2004 pending enquiry into the charges contemplated under Rule 17(b). Thereafter, a charge memo was issued on 15. 2004 stating that the petitioner failed to check up the iron plate fitted on the base of the door of the lock up cell, which resulted in the escape of two prisoners from 7th lock up cell. 2004 pending enquiry into the charges contemplated under Rule 17(b). Thereafter, a charge memo was issued on 15. 2004 stating that the petitioner failed to check up the iron plate fitted on the base of the door of the lock up cell, which resulted in the escape of two prisoners from 7th lock up cell. Several witnesses were examined on behalf of the department. Petitioner submitted his explanation stating that he was on duty between 3.00 pm and 6.00 pm and handed over the keys after inspection of the lock up cell No.7 in the presence of the Superintendent and Chief Head Warder. Along with the petitioner, proceedings were initiated against several other persons and were found guilty. Punishment was imposed as follows:- Name of the post Punishment Thiru N. Navarathinam, Assistant Jailor, Sub Jail, Tiruppur His next increment postponed for 2 years with cumulative effect Thiru R. Dhandayuthapani Grade-I Warder, Sub Jail, Tiruppur His pay reduced for three stages for three years with cumulative effect Thiru A. Subramanian Grade-II Warder His pay reduced to bottom of scale for three years with cumulative effect Thiru Arukkutti Grade-II Warder His pay reduced to bottom of scale for three years with cumulative effect Thiru Rajendran, Chief Head Warder His pay reduced for 2 stages for two years with cumulative effect As far as the petitioner is concerned, he was imposed with the punishment of reduction of pay for three years by three stages with cumulative effect. Challenging the said punishment and the proceedings of the respondent, present writ petition has been filed. 3. The writ petition was admitted on 13. 2005. Interim order in favour of the petitioner was passed on 13. 2005. The matter is now listed before this court for final disposal as a date fixed case. At the time of final hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits as follows:- (a) As per the suspension order dated 4. 2004 issued by the Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore, the duty hours of the petitioner is 9.00 am to 12.00 noon in the morning and 3.00 pm to 6.00 pm in the evening. From the details culled out from the charge memo and the enquiry and the evidence of co-prisoners, it is clear that the incident of escape by two prisoners happened on the night of 33. 2004. From the details culled out from the charge memo and the enquiry and the evidence of co-prisoners, it is clear that the incident of escape by two prisoners happened on the night of 33. 2004. There is no dispute on fact that at the time when the petitioner was on duty between 3.00 pm and 6.00 pm, the occurrence did not happen. The fact that the incident of escape of two prisoners happened in the night is evident from the stand taken by Thiru Navarathinam, who is the Assistant Jailor, Sub Jail, Tiruppur, who has stated that the incident happened at about 11.00 pm and this stand is supported by the evidence of the coprisoner of the two prisoners who escaped on 33. 2004. .(b) As against the punishment imposed against Thiru Navarathinam, Assistant Jailor, who is also designated as Superintendent, Sub Jail, an appeal was preferred by him to the Additional Director General of Prisons, who by order dated 25. 2006 in No.13207/C.S.1/2006 after going through the various provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prison Manual and the Sub Jail Manual accepted the stand of the Assistant Jailor Thiru Navarathinam and observed in paragraph 13 that there was no proper iron plate on the base of the doors and the prison was not properly maintained for quite sometime. The prisoners were locked in such a badly maintained cell. He was of the view that the Sub Jail was not properly maintained. Therefore, the Superintendent, Sub Jail, viz., the Assistant Jailor cannot be held responsible for the escape of prisoners. In fact, the finding of the Additional Director General of Prison is that the higher officials had not taken proper care to maintain the sub jail properly. On this premise, the punishment imposed against Thiru Navarathinam, the Assistant Jailor, Sub Jail, Tiruppur, was set aside. The said order of the Additional Director General of Prisons was accepted by the Government and the said Navarathinam, the Assistant Jailor, Sub Jail, Tiruppur was reinstated into service. .(c) On the above stated ground, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that no prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner to hold him guilty of charge of escape of two prisoners and the punishment imposed is without any basis and arbitrary. 4. Heard the learned Government Advocate Mr. L.S.M. Hasan Fizal,, who appears for the respondent Central Prison. 4. Heard the learned Government Advocate Mr. L.S.M. Hasan Fizal,, who appears for the respondent Central Prison. He reiterated the stand of the department based on the counter-affidavit. The files of the department were also perused. The learned Government Advocate was asked to checkup the duty time referred to in the suspension order issued to the petitioner Selvan, Thiru B. Subramani, Grade-II Warder and Arukutty, Grade-II Warders. 5. From the Suspension order, one fact that clearly emerges is that the petitioner in this case was on duty from 3.00 pm to 6.00 pm only on 33. 2004. From the evidence of co-prisoners and the stand taken by the Assistant Jailor, Sub Jail, Tiruppur, who is also the in-charge of the Superintendent of the Sub Jail, it is clear that the incident happened on 33. 2004 at 11.00 pm or thereafter and during that period, the petitioner was not on duty. If the procedures as per the jail manual has been followed by the petitioner at the time of handing over charge at 6.00 pm on 33. 2004, and accepted by the officers, there is no justification to come to conclusion that the petitioner was responsible for the delinquency charged. The order of the Additional Director General of Prisons referred to above clearly states that the maintenance of the Sub Jail, Tiruppur was not proper and the higher authorities have not taken proper care and caution to maintain the jail. Therefore, Thiru Navarathinam, the Assistant Jailor was absolved of the delinquency charged. The Government also accepted the same. On the basis of the above factors, the case of the petitioner stands on the better footing than that of Assistant Jailor for the following reasons:- .(i) Admittedly during the time of escape, the petitioner was not on duty. .(ii) The handing over of charge at 6.00 pm on 33. 2004 was made in the presence of the senior officers and that is not in dispute. (iii) The finding of the Additional Director General of Prisons in his order dated 5. 2006 clearly sates that the maintenance of the jail was not in order for which the petitioner can not be held responsible. 6. For the above said reasons, this court finds that the finding of guilt by the enquiry officer as against the petitioner is without any basis. There is no material to support the delinquency charged. 2006 clearly sates that the maintenance of the jail was not in order for which the petitioner can not be held responsible. 6. For the above said reasons, this court finds that the finding of guilt by the enquiry officer as against the petitioner is without any basis. There is no material to support the delinquency charged. Consequently, the punishment imposed on the petitioner cannot be sustained. 7. Learned Government Advocate raised a plea with regard to alternate remedy available to the petitioner which has not been exhausted. The Writ petition was admitted on 13. 2005 and interim order was passed on the same day. At the time of final disposal, the petitioner brought to the attention of the court, the order passed by the Additional Director General of Prison dated 25. 2006 wherein the entire case of the department as against the petitioner falls, in view of the finding of the highest authority that the maintenance of jail by the higher authority was not proper. In any event, petitioner admittedly is not in duty. 8. In such circumstances at this point of time, it will not be proper to relegate the petitioner to seek remedy by way of an appeal before the department. When the facts are not in dispute and the material placed on record has very clearly shown that there is no guilt on the part of the petitioner, the question of invoking alternate remedy does not arise in this case. The impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.