Court restores penalty on Tihar Jail officer for ill-treatment, extortion

The Delhi High Court has upheld disciplinary action against an Assistant Superintendent of Tihar Jail for alleged ill-treatment of inmates and extortion of money, restoring a penalty imposed nearly two decades ago.

A Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Manoj Jain allowed a plea moved by the Director General of Tihar Jail and set aside a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order that had quashed the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities. The Tribunal had further directed that the officer be granted consequential service benefits.

The case traces back to 2003 when three undertrial prisoners lodged complaints before their respective trial courts through counsel, alleging that the officer had assaulted them and demanded money while posted at Jail No. 1. The complaints were forwarded to the prison authorities, leading to initiation of departmental proceedings.

A chargesheet was served in 2004, along with a statement of imputations of misconduct. The officer denied the allegations, following which an enquiry officer was appointed. In 2005, the enquiry officer submitted his report holding the charge proved on the strength of a prisoner’s testimony, the deposition of a Deputy Superintendent and supporting documents.

Acting on the report, the disciplinary authority in November 2005 imposed the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, adversely impacting the officer’s pension. His appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority, but he later secured relief from the CAT, which quashed the punishment in 2008. The prison administration then approached the High Court.

Setting aside the CAT order, the Bench observed that the Tribunal had re-appreciated evidence beyond its jurisdiction. “We cannot overlook the testimony of the undertrial prisoner who categorically stated that he was assaulted and money was demanded only by the Assistant Superintendent. The attribution was direct and unambiguous,” the Court said.

The Bench noted that even if the deposition of another jail official was discarded on the ground of alleged hostility, the prisoner’s testimony alone was sufficient to sustain the charge on the principle of preponderance of probabilities applicable to departmental proceedings.

“We are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned order of the learned Tribunal suffers from a jurisdictional error in re-appreciating evidence and overlooking relevant material,” the Court observed.

Allowing the writ petition, the Bench restored the disciplinary penalty, holding: “The impugned order dated July 21, 2008 passed by the learned Tribunal in OA No. 1640/2007 is quashed, the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority vide order dated November 7, 2005, as upheld by the appellate authority, stands restored.”