Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was appointed as II Grade Warder on 25.3.1998 and he was posted to work at Central Prison, Madurai, from 27.7.1998. He was on para duty in Remand Block of that Prison between 9.00 p.m. to 12.00 midnight and 3.00 a.m. to 6.00 a.m. on 30.11.2001/1.12.2001. The petitioner took charge at 3.00 a.m. from Thiru K.David Ranjit Kumar, II Grade Warder. At abut 4.40 a.m., four prisoners of 9th Cell of Remand Block II, opened the lock of the Cell, came out of the Block with a plan to escape from the Jail, reached near compound wall, removed the stone slabs which were used for closing the drainage and climbed one by one by putting the slabs one over another near the compound wall. Two out of the four prisoners escaped and two others were caught within the Jail premises. The said two escaped prisoners were apprehended on 30.12.2001 and lodged in Jail. 2. Whileso, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo dated 10.12.2001 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D&A) Rules, which is to the following effect: (i) The petitioner had not checked the lock of the 9th Cell of Remand Block II while taking charge of Para Duty; (ii) The petitioner was careless, while discharging his duties; and (iii) The petitioner had not noticed the removal of slabs used for drainage purpose and thereby permitted the prisoners to use those removed slabs for escape. 3. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 6.2.2002 denying the charges. An enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the charges. The enquiry officer gave his report on 24.6.2002, holding that all the three charges were proved. Based on the same, the petitioner was dismissed from service by an order dated 16.7.2002. 4. The petitioner filed O.A.No. 6317 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal for quashing the order of dismissal and to reinstate him with all consequential benefits. After the abolition of the Tribunal, the said Original Application was transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.36643 of 2005. 5. The respondents filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations. 6. Heard both sides. 7. After the abolition of the Tribunal, the said Original Application was transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.36643 of 2005. 5. The respondents filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one of the two prisoners who was escaped on 1.12.2001 deposed in the enquiry as a Departmental witness to the effect that the removal of slab took place before a month and they made a pre-plan to escape. Likewise, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner produced a News item in 'The Hindu', wherein the D.I.G. Of Prisons gave an interview to the Press stating that the 'locks were very old and damaged.' The learned counsel further submits that the other personnel in the Jail were on round the clock duty, but no other persons were dismissed from service except the petitioner. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on paragraph No.8 of the counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that only minor punishments were imposed on the other delinquents. In support of his contention, the learned counsel also relied on My Order dated 5.10.2010 made in W.P.No.31186 of 2006. 9. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate has sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition, based on the averments made in the counter affidavit. 10. I have considered the submissions made on either side. 11. For better appreciation of the matter, paragraph Nos. 7,8 and 9 of the counter affidavit is extracted hereunder: "7. Therefore, the applicant along with the following four others who were directly responsible were placed under suspension vide pro.no.17620/g1/2001 dt 1.12.2001 of Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai, with effect from 1.12.2001 and Disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against them under Rule 17(b) of T.N.C.S.(D & A) Rules according to their lapses in their duties. The charges framed against the delinquents including the applicant were proved by the enquiry officer. 8. Hence the punishment noted against them were awarded according to their charges: Sl. No. Name of the Person 1 S.FrancisII.Gr.Wr (Applicant) 2 G.Sakthivel, I.Gr.Wr. 3 I.Savanandi, I.Gr.Wr. The charges framed against the delinquents including the applicant were proved by the enquiry officer. 8. Hence the punishment noted against them were awarded according to their charges: Sl. No. Name of the Person 1 S.FrancisII.Gr.Wr (Applicant) 2 G.Sakthivel, I.Gr.Wr. 3 I.Savanandi, I.Gr.Wr. Place of Duty Paraduty at remand Block II for the hours from 9.p.m. To 12.00 midnight and 3.00 a.m. to 6.00 a.m. on 30.12.01/01.12.2001 Posted to work as II night tower officer during the hours 12.00 midnight to 06.00 am on 30.11.01/01.12.01 Posted to work as I tower night officer during the hours from 60.00 p.m. to Details of charges While on his duty hours, 4 prisoners were escaped from the jail due to slackness in his duty. Due to his carelessness, he was not alerted he block incharge warder and also slackness in his supervision. He was not properly checked the locks of the cell doors in remand Block II. Punishment details Dismissed from service w.e.f.2.8.02 Pay reduced to bottom of time scale for 3 years w.c.effect Pay reduced to 1 stage for 6 months w/o cum effect. 12.00 midnight on 30.11.01 Failure to check the locks are Posted to work as Lock-up G.Palanisamy, II Gr.Wr properly locking in the cell doors warder in remand block II of the remand block II on on 30.11.2001. 30.11.2001 Posted to work as He failure to Monitor the duties of R.KaruppiahI.Gr.Wr. Checking Warder in Reman lockup warder in remand block II Block II on 30.11.2001 on 30.11.2001 Pay reduced to 1 stage for 1 year w/o cum.effect. Pay reduced to 1stage for 1year w/o cum.effect. 9. In addition to that disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Rule 17(b) of T.N.C.S. (D&A) Rules, for the following staff of this Prison according to their lapses in their duties and awarded punishments. Sl. No. 1 Name of the Person Place of Duty Details of charges Punishment details Posted to work as para duty at remand block II for the His failure to check the locks are properly checked also failure to go around the block which K.DvaitRanjith Kumar, II. hours from 6.00 p.m. to 9.00 Gr. Wr p.m. and 12.00 a.m. to 3.00 a.m. on 30.11.2001/1.12.2001 caused two prisoners were come Pay reduced to 1 out of the block and among them stage for 3 months two prisoners were escaped by w/o cum. hours from 6.00 p.m. to 9.00 Gr. Wr p.m. and 12.00 a.m. to 3.00 a.m. on 30.11.2001/1.12.2001 caused two prisoners were come Pay reduced to 1 out of the block and among them stage for 3 months two prisoners were escaped by w/o cum. effect scaling over the compound wall by the method of climbing upon one by one. He was placed in charge G.Thangamani, Asst. jr. officer for the Remand block II on 30.11.2001 His failure to supervising the locks locked in the cell doors of the remand block II which caused four prisoners were broken the lock of the cell door and come out of the block and among them two prisoners were escaped by scalling over the compound wall by the method of climbing upon one by one. Pay reduced to 1 stage for 6 months w/o cum. effect 3 He was posted as incharge S.AmirthalalDy. Jr officer for the period from to 1.5.2001 His failure to replace the locks in a regular interval time and also he has not taken action for Pay reduced to 1 closing the drainage stone slabs. stage for 3 months Hence four Prisoners were taken w/o cum effect. the above lenient way and planning to escape. 4 5 G.ThamalaiSelvan, Dy. Jr. R.Murugan, Dy. Jr. His failure to go around the He was posted to work as prison each and every corner. night officer on Hence two prisoners were 30.11.2001/1.12.2001 escaped at 4.40 a.m. on 1.12.2001. He failed in his supervision whether the locks of the cell He was placed to hold full doors are properly locked and charge of the post of Jailor in also the same should be addition to his own duties for replaced in a regular interval time. Therefore four prisoners the periio from 26.11.2001 to were come out of the cell by 2.12.2001 breaking the lock. Among them two prisoners were escaped by scaling over the compound wall. Pay reduced to 1 stage for 6 months w/o cum. Effect. Pay reduced to 1 stage for 3 months w/o cum. Effect. 11. Even as per the counter affidavit, the petitioner and the four other persons were directly responsible for the incident that took place on 1.12.2001, wherein four prisoners escaped from the Prison. But none of them were imposed with the major penalty and in fact they were imposed with minor penalties. Effect. 11. Even as per the counter affidavit, the petitioner and the four other persons were directly responsible for the incident that took place on 1.12.2001, wherein four prisoners escaped from the Prison. But none of them were imposed with the major penalty and in fact they were imposed with minor penalties. The details of the penalty given to other four persons are mentioned in paragraph No. 8 of the counter affidavit. Apart from that, disciplinary action was initiated against five others and they were also not imposed with major penalty of dismissal from service, as found in paragraph No.9of the counter affidavit. 12. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the respondent is not correct in dismissing the petitioner while he has chosen to impose minor penalty to others. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the departmental witness namely, one of the escaped prisoner, deposed during enquiry that they removed the slab well before a month in order to escape from the Prison. If that be so, the petitioner could not be blamed for carelessness. Further in view of the statement made by the departmental witness, charge Nos. 2 and 3 could get diluted and the petitioner alone could not be singled out for imposing the extreme penalty of dismissal. 13. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it seems that on many occasions, where the prisoners have attempted to escape, in those cases, they were not imposed with the penalty of dismissal. The same was considered by me in the Order dated 5.10.2010 in W.P.No.31186 of 2006. Paragraph No.12 of the said order is relevant and the same is extracted hereunder: "12. The facts are not in dispute. When the petitioner was entrusted with the work of clearing the central jail compound by two convict prisoners, one of them escaped. Similarly placed persons were imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect by the Disciplinary authority. On appeal, ultimately, those punishments were reduced to the punishment of stoppage of increment for 3 months or 6 months and in some cases the punishments set aside. Similarly placed persons were imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect by the Disciplinary authority. On appeal, ultimately, those punishments were reduced to the punishment of stoppage of increment for 3 months or 6 months and in some cases the punishments set aside. In his representation, the petitioner stated that three warders, namely, V.M.Shanmugam, R.Baskara Singh and L. Thambusamy were imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for three months/six months and he pointed out that two other warders, who are also similarly situated, namely S.Ramasamy and P.Sundarrajan were initially imposed with minor punishment, and on appeal those punishments were set aside. The relevant passage in his representation, on the show cause notice issued by the first respondent asking him to show cause as to why punishment should not be enhanced, is as follows: “TAMIL” 14. In view of the averments in paragraph Nos. 7 to 9 of the counter affidavit and also the order passed by me dated 5.10.2010 in W.P.No.31186 of 2006, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on the quantum of punishment that could be imposed on the petitioner, taking into account the aforesaid observations, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 15. The Writ Petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs.