Akil Kureshi, C.J. - (1.) The petitioner, a retired Government servant, has challenged an order dated 17.02.2018 passed by the Secretary to the Government of Tripura by which a penalty of reduction of pension by 7.5% for a period of 3(three) years from the date of superannuation has been imposed.
(2.) Brief facts are as under: The petitioner joined the Government service as a Sub-Jailor in the year 1986. He joined the post of Deputy Superintendent on 24.04.2008. On 31.03.2016 he joined Kendriya Sansodhanagar as a Superintendent-in- Charge. On 21.10.2016 at around 7.15 p.m. three convicts escaped from the said jail. In connection with this incident the petitioner was first placed under suspension on 24.10.2016 and thereafter a charge-sheet was issued to him on 31.01.2017 in which the charge levelled against the petitioner was that while working as Superintendent-in-Charge, Kendriya Sansodhanagar, on 21.10.2016 he did not discharge his duty properly which resulted into three convicts escaping from the custody of the jail. In the process, the petitioner had failed to supervise effectively Kendriya Sansodhanagar as well as his subordinates posted in the said centre. It was alleged that the petitioner had thus exhibited gross negligence in discharge of his duties. In the statement of imputation of misconduct, this charge was elaborated. It was pointed out that the three convicts were lodged in the Kendriya Sansodhanagar. They escaped from the jail on 21.10.2016 with the help of one rusted iron pipe which was about 20 feet long and was found positioned in an inclined state on the wall of the jail. It was alleged that the petitioner had not assigned the duty of a staff member as fixed sentry on the tower No.5 in the northeast corner of the jail due to which the prisoners got an opportunity to escape. Sri Ashu Kr. Jamatia was assigned the duty between 4 p.m. up to the lockup time on the date of the incident but he was found absent from duty and came from home when he was informed on the phone about the incident. Thus, the petitioner had also failed to supervise the presence of his subordinate jail staff. It was further alleged that a 20 feet long G.I. pipe was used by the prisoners for escaping by placing the pipe on the tin shed which was used at the kitchen or tea stall. The petitioner also failed in his supervisory duty which allowed the convicts to remove the said pipe from the kitchen and use it for escaping.
(3.) The petitioner denied the charges upon which a departmental inquiry was conducted. In his defence the petitioner urged that he had not shown any negligence in discharge of his duties. The work of supervision of the staff of the jail was mainly that of the Jailor and not the Superintendent or the Deputy Superintendent. He submitted that the prisoners could escape because of the faulty construction of the jail and failure to install CCTV cameras.;