Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 318 (UTT)

SUBHASH CHANDRA PANT v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2012-06-25

BARIN GHOSH, U.C.DHYANI

body2012
JUDGMENT Hon. Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) Bench copy of the writ petition has been filed in Court and, accordingly, defect has been removed. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents does not object to the application for condonation of 23 days’ delay being allowed. We have also, however, considered the averments made in the application for condonation of delay and, being satisfied with the sufficiency of the reasons furnished, allow the application (CLMA No. 11203 of 2011). 3. We are not inclined to admit the appeal, inasmuch as, there is nothing to go in the appeal. Prisoner in the custody of the appellants escaped. Report, in that regard, was lodged by the appellants themselves with Haldwani Police Station. That report led to an investigation by the police under the Code of Criminal Procedure, which resulted in filing of a charge-sheet before the appropriate Magistrate. By the charge-sheet, appellants were charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 223 and 224 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, it was clear that the appellants were charged of, being public servants legally bound as such public servants to keep in confinement the said prisoner charged with an offence, negligently permitting the said prisoner to escape from such confinement. 4. In relation to the selfsame incident, an independent departmental inquiry was made. In course of such inquiry, it transpired that the prisoner in question, who escaped, was given in the custody of the appellants at Nainital for the purpose of presentation of the said prisoner before Kashipur court. On the selfsame day, he was produced at 6 p.m. in the night. Subsequent thereto, appellants alongwith the said prisoner went to the residence of the said prisoner and remained there in the night. Thereafter, on the next day, appellants reported to the Haldwani Police Station that the prisoner has escaped. Having regard to the findings of the said preliminary inquiry, a departmental charge sheet was issued to the appellants, where it was alleged that the appellants spent the night in question at the residence of the prisoner. It was stated in the charge-sheet that upon failure on the part of the appellants to give a satisfactory answer thereto, their salaries will be reduced. Appellants gave a reply to the charge sheet. It was stated in the charge-sheet that upon failure on the part of the appellants to give a satisfactory answer thereto, their salaries will be reduced. Appellants gave a reply to the charge sheet. From the reply of the appellants, it is crystal clear that at the time of giving the reply, appellants had full knowledge of the findings of preliminary inquiry. They, accordingly, dealt with the inquiry report, but did not deny that they spent the night in the residence of the prisoner, nor did they say what they did during the night. In the circumstances, punishment was awarded. 5. In the writ petition, it was contended that while awarding the punishment, no inquiry was conducted. In fact, no inquiry was conducted after the charge sheet was issued. Question of making any inquiry in the instant case did not arise, inasmuch as, appellants did not deny in reply to the charge-sheet, the solitary charge, that was levelled against them in the charge-sheet, that the appellants had spent the night in question at the residence of the prisoner. 6. When the writ petition was pending, criminal trial was continuing and was concluded by giving benefit of doubt to the appellants, inasmuch as, all the witnesses turned hostile. By filing a supplementary affidavit to the writ petition, appellants, therefore, contended that appellants should also be absolved in the departmental proceedings, inasmuch as, they have been absolved of the charge levelled against them in the criminal trial. 7. Having regard to the fact that the charges were totally different in the proceedings referred to above, outcome of one could not influence the outcome of the other. Principally on that ground, the writ petition has been dismissed. 8. For the reasons indicated above, we are of the view that the present appeal has not raised any question, which requires to be gone in further. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.