Introduction:

In the case titled Raj Kishore Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Jail Administration And Reforms Department. U.P. Lko. And 2 Others [WRIT A No 6716 of 2024], the Allahabad High Court, through Justice Neeraj Tiwari, adjudicated upon the validity of a punitive order deducting 10% from the pension of a retired Jail Superintendent on the grounds of alleged supervisory failure. The petitioner, Raj Kishore Singh, who served as Jail Superintendent at Etawah and was earlier appointed as Deputy Jailer in 1994, faced departmental proceedings for the escape of two convicts from jail premises during his tenure. The State Government had imposed a penalty under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations (CSR), contending negligence and lack of control over subordinates. However, the Court, while absolving Singh of misconduct, reiterated that supervisory inaction or carelessness does not equate to “grave misconduct” within the purview of Regulation 351-A and thus set aside the order.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioner, Raj Kishore Singh, submitted before the Allahabad High Court that he was wrongfully punished with a pension deduction order for an incident involving the escape of two convicted prisoners, despite having raised repeated alarms regarding the poor jail infrastructure, dysfunctional CCTV cameras, and shortage of security personnel through multiple written communications. He contended that as Jail Superintendent, his role was supervisory, and the primary responsibility of execution and security rested with the Jailer and Deputy Jailers, who were only issued minor punishments of censure. He further argued that the punishment order was discriminatory and disproportionate, especially since no direct involvement or grave misconduct was attributed to him.

The State, on the other hand, maintained that the petitioner failed to exercise proper control over his subordinates, thereby allowing a lapse in jail security, and that such failure justified deduction under Regulation 351-A of the CSR. However, the High Court, after analyzing the facts and relying upon the precedent set in Surendra Pandey Ex Deputy Jailer Vs. State of U.P. held that mere lack of supervision or carelessness could not be categorized as grave misconduct under the Regulation. It observed that there was no pecuniary loss caused to the State by the petitioner and that there was no act of direct involvement or intentional omission leading to the jailbreak.

Judgement:

The Court found merit in the argument that the discriminatory punishment was not tenable since more liable officers were awarded lighter penalties. It also found it unjust to overlook Singh’s written warnings and preventive measures, which went unheeded by authorities. As such, the Court concluded that the punishment of pension deduction was legally unsustainable and arbitrary. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.06.2023 was quashed, and the respondents were directed to refund the deducted pension amount to the petitioner along with 9% annual interest and all consequential benefits.