High Court finds Deputy Superintendent guilty of dereliction of duty
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a jail official challenging the cut in his pension following a custodial death, holding that “the prisoner having been sent to judicial remand by the court, was as a matter of fact in its constructive custody given to the arms of the State, protection of whose was the primary responsibility of the authorities manning the jail.”
Justice Aman Chaudhary held that while there were no allegations of direct assault against the petitioner, Ferozepur Central Jail Deputy Superintendent Dilbagh Singh, in the custodial death of undertrial Kewal Singh. But he was nevertheless guilty of dereliction of duty as the in-charge of the jail at the time of the incident.
The court was hearing a petition filed against the charge-sheet dated April 13, 2010, the punishment order dated September 27, 2013, and the appellate authority’s order of May 4, 2016, by which a 5 per cent cut in the petitioner’s pension was initially imposed and later restricted to a two-year period.
The incident traces back to the custodial death of Kewal Singh, who was allegedly “beaten to death by jail officials” while lodged in Central Jail, Ferozepur. The matter reached the court after it took suo motu cognizance based on a newspaper report dated April 22, 2007. An FIR was registered on September 19, 2007, and the challan was filed against eight individuals. Taking up the matter, a Division Bench initially awarded a compensation of Rs 10 lakh to the kin of the deceased, granting liberty to the Director-General of Police to recover the amount from the erring officials.
Justice Chaudhary noted that on the day of the incident, the jail Superintendent was on leave and had officially handed over the charge to the petitioner. The disciplinary authority, holding the petitioner liable for not performing his duties responsibly, inflicted the punishment of 5 per cent cut in his pension vide order dated September 27, 2013,
Observing that “a precious human life was lost in judicial custody,” the court asserted the dereliction of duty was “writ large”. The inquiry report concluded that he was not culpable for causing beatings leading to the death. Yet, he was held guilty of loose control over his subordinate staff
“Urging to have been let off scot-free on the premise of his being at his residence, is rather a valiant attempt, in the wake of the facts and circumstances as they exist and the evidence relied upon to indict him,” Justice Chaudhary asserted.
Dismissing the petition, Justice Chaudhary held “nothing could be shown that the case of the petitioner falls within four corners of the ambit of interference and there is no whisper of proper opportunity of having not been granted or any flaw in the procedure adopted.” The appellate authority inexplicably took a clement view by restricting the penalty to a two-year cut in pension.
