SUBHASH CHANDRA PANT Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Subhash Chandra Pant
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
BARIN GHOSH, J. -
(1.) BENCH copy of the writ petition has been filed in Court and,
accordingly, defect has been removed.
(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents does not object to the application for condonation of 23 days delay being
allowed. We have also, however, considered the averments made in the
application for condonation of delay and, being satisfied with the
sufficiency of the reasons furnished, allow the application (CLMA No.
11203 of 2011).
(3.) WE are not inclined to admit the appeal, inasmuch as, there is nothing to go in the appeal. Prisoner in the custody of the appellants
escaped. Report, in that regard, was lodged by the appellants themselves
with Haldwani Police Station. That report led to an investigation by the
police under the Code of Criminal Procedure, which resulted in filing of
a charge -sheet before the appropriate Magistrate. By the charge -sheet,
appellants were charged for having committed offences punishable under
Sections 223 and 224 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, it was clear
that the appellants were charged of, being public servants legally bound
as such public servants to keep in confinement the said prisoner charged
with an offence, negligently permitting the said prisoner to escape from
In relation to the selfsame incident, an independent departmental inquiry was made. In course of such inquiry, it transpired
that the prisoner in question, who escaped, was given in the custody of
the appellants at Nainital for the purpose of presentation of the said
prisoner before Kashipur court. On the selfsame day, he was produced at 6
p.m. in the night. Subsequent thereto, appellants alongwith the said
prisoner went to the residence of the said prisoner and remained there in
the night. Thereafter, on the next day, appellants reported to the
Haldwani Police Station that the prisoner has escaped. Having regard to
the findings of the said preliminary inquiry, a departmental charge sheet
was issued to the appellants, where it was alleged that the appellants
spent the night in question at the residence of the prisoner. It was
stated in the charge -sheet that upon failure on the part of the
appellants to give a satisfactory answer thereto, their salaries will be
reduced. Appellants gave a reply to the charge sheet. From the reply of
the appellants, it is crystal clear that at the time of giving the reply,
appellants had full knowledge of the findings of preliminary inquiry.
They, accordingly, dealt with the inquiry report, but did not deny that
they spent the night in the residence of the prisoner, nor did they say
what they did during the night. In the circumstances, punishment was
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.