JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. G.S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner who has retired as the Superintendent of Kendriya Sanshodhanagar on 31.07.2017 has challenged the memorandum under No.F.X-498/IGP/2016/812-14 dated 31.01.2017 [Annexure-C to the writ petition] issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Home (Jail) Department, the respondent No.3 herein. The petitioner has further challenged the note dated 23.10.2016 [Annexure-D to the writ petition] issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Tripura, the respondent No.2 herein, based on the impugned memorandum dated 31.01.2017. 3. Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that two independent inquiries were instituted by the respondents. One inquiry as conducted by the Inspector General of Prisons Tripura has ended with submission of his report dated 23.10.2016 to the Secretary, Home (Jail) Department, Government of Tripura [Annexure-B/1 to the writ petition]. Another investigation was carried out by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sepahijala. His report was also submitted by the Director General of Police, Tripura on 22.10.2016 [Annexure-B/2 to the writ petition]. Mr. Datta, learned counsel has journeyed this court to both the reports to show that in none of the reports, against the petitioner no imputation has been leveled, nor his negligence has been indicated in the escape of 3(three) prisoners from Kendriya Sanshodhanagar. 4. Mr. Datta, learned counsel has stoutly submitted that without any material whatsoever the said memorandum dated 31.01.2017 has been issued proposing a departmental inquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 against the petitioner. According to Mr. Datta, learned counsel the allegations are farfetched and sought to be structured on violations of Rules 78, 200(i), 248 and 249 of “Bengal Jail Code” Volume-I, Part-I and Rule 3 of Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1998. Mr. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has clearly submitted that the provisions of rules being 200(i), 248 and 249 of the “Bengal Jail Code” are not related to the post of Superintendent of Jail, those are meant for the Jailors. Therefore, ex-facie, it emerges that there was non-mind application of file while issuing the memorandum dated 31.01.2017 [Annexure-C to the writ petition]. 5. From the other side, Mr. Therefore, ex-facie, it emerges that there was non-mind application of file while issuing the memorandum dated 31.01.2017 [Annexure-C to the writ petition]. 5. From the other side, Mr. G.S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that those reports are not only the basis, but Rule 78 of the “Bengal Jail Code” casts duty upon the Superintendent of jail. There are records that the petitioner did not discharge his duties. Had he discharged his duties on that day of escape, in all probabilities the prisoners could not have lapse to escape from the jail. The petitioner has denied all such imputations as leveled by the respondents. 6. In the reply filed by the respondents, they have further stated that the petitioner has already submitted his written statement of defence on 28.02.2017. But the disciplinary authority having not satisfied with the reply has appointed the Inquiring Authority and the Presenting Officer by the order dated 14.03.2017. Those respondents have stated in para-15 of the said reply as follows: “The petitioner was responsible to ensure that all subordinate officers and staffs are properly detailed for their duties. The petitioner was also responsible to supervise that in case any staff is absent, he supposed to arrange alternate staff in that pace. The petitioner did not detail any fix sentry on tower No.5 in north-East corner of the KST, taking the advantage of such lack in security the three life convicts had managed to escape on 21.10.2016 at about 7.15 p.m. On the other hand one Warder namely Sri Ashu Kumar Jamatia was detailed for patrolling duty from 04.00 pm to uptill on lockup of the prisoners Ward, but the said Warder was remain absent from his allotted duty and subsequently, when he was called up over phone after the incident has happened, he came through the main gate of the jail in civil dress. Had the North Eastern corner of the jail been guarded properly by employing the sentry and proper patrolling duties were performed by staffs such type of escapes could be avoided. Thus the petitioner failed to supervise the jail properly and failed to discharge his duties and also showed sheer negligence to administrate over his subordinate officers and staffs, in that jail.” 7. Thus the petitioner failed to supervise the jail properly and failed to discharge his duties and also showed sheer negligence to administrate over his subordinate officers and staffs, in that jail.” 7. It is also stated that three life convict prisoners could escape from jail by way of a rusted iron pipe which was kept in the kitchen inside the jail campus. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has relied on an inspection report of Kendriya Sanshodhanagar, Bishalgarh dated 07.11.2016 [Annexure-H to the rejoinder] where it has been clearly observed that there was severe shortage of staff in the Kendriya Sanshodhanagar. 8. Be that as it may, this court having perused the averments and records produced with the writ petition and rejoinder is of the view that this is not a case where the memorandum of charge shall be interfered with. But the respondents do have duty to complete the entire proceeding within a period of 6(six) months as per the rule. But in this case, as it appears, that after engagement of the Inquiring Authority and the Presenting Officer the proceeding did not advance further. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has retired from the service and he is not getting pension and other retiral benefits only for the pendency of this departmental proceeding. 9. Mr. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted in addition that he has not been favoured with the provisional pension subject to finalization of the departmental proceeding. Even the General Provident Fund (GPF) proceeds as he is entitled to receive, has not been released. In view of this, the respondents are directed to release the provisional pension in favour of the petitioner within a period of 7(seven) days from the date when the petitioner shall furnish a copy of this order and the respondents shall release the entire GPF proceeds in favour of the petitioner within 30(thirty) days from the date of submission of this order. Most importantly, the respondents are directed to complete the departmental proceeding within a period of 4(four) months from today without fail. The petitioner shall not take adjournment. If he insists for adjournment the said period and that is granted in favour of the petitioner, shall be added to the period as prescribed by this court. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. The petitioner shall not take adjournment. If he insists for adjournment the said period and that is granted in favour of the petitioner, shall be added to the period as prescribed by this court. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no further order as to costs.