D. Y. Chandrachud, J. - (1.)The first respondent was working as a Jailor in grade II and during the relevant time, between 10th July, 1985 and 17th August, 1985, he was assigned for duty at the District Prison, Byculla, Mumbai. At the time when the first respondent was posted as jailor, an undertrial prisoner by the name of abdul Hamid was lodged in the prison. It was alleged that during this period, there was a failure on the part of the first respondent to discharge his duties and that the aforesaid undertrial prisoner had brought in unauthorised articles including a Television Set, Video recorder and Video Cassettes. There was, it was alleged, a failure on the part of the first respondent to take necessary steps which he was under an obligation to take in his capacity as a Jailor. A disciplinary enquiry came to be convened against the first respondent and on 3rd February, 1986, a charge-sheet was issued to him. On the conclusion of those proceedings, the first respondent came to be removed from service by an order dated 12th february, 1988. The order was challenged by the petitioner and the Administrative Tribunal while setting aside the order of punishment, granted liberty to the State Government to commence a de novo enquiry. An enquiry was accordingly held. During the pendency of the enquiry, the first respondent attained the age of superannuation on 31st March, 1999. The enquiry continued under the applicable Rules after the aforesaid date and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 20th October, 1999. A notice to show cause was issued to the first respondent calling upon him to explain as to why the findings contained in the report should not be accepted. The first respondent submitted his reply and on 4th May, 2000, the disciplinary Authority while holding that the charge of misconduct had been duly established imposed a punishment of a ten percent reduction in the pensionary payments of the first respondent on a permanent basis. The first respondent challenged that order before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which allowed the application by its order dated 11th September, 2000. The State of Maharashtra has instituted these proceedings to challenge the order of the Tribunal. II
(2.)In the course of the disciplinary enquiry, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that Charges 5, 7 and 8 that were levelled against the first respondent had been partially established in the enquiry. These charges were as follows:
"(i) Charge No. 5 : On 12th August, 1985, an under trial prisoner, Abdul Hamid, had between 5. 30 and 6. 15 p. m. brought into the premises of the Byculla Prison, unauthorised articles such as a Television set, Video recorder and Video Cassettes through the main gate into barrack No. 2 without permission. Information of this occurrence was furnished to the first respondent, but the first respondent did not take a surprise check of the barrack, nor did he give directions of seizure of these unauthorised articles. The first respondent did not take steps to verify as to whether the aforesaid articles had been duly seized and removed as a result of which they continued to remain under the custody of the under trial prisoner in the barrack. The conduct of the first respondent thus involved a breach of discipline, negligence and a responsibility in the discharge of his duty, thereby leading to a breach of Rule 14 (1) of the Maharashtra prison (Staff Function) Rules, 1955; (ii) Charge No. 7 : Between 10th July, 1985 and 17th August, 1985, the first respondent did not conduct surprise checks of the prisoners entering or leaving the barrack cells though the prisoners were moving and communicating freely, nor did the first respondent issue directions for conducting such checks. There was, thus, a breach of discipline, negligence and irresponsible conduct on the part of the first respondent in violation of the Maharashtra Prison (Staff function) Rules, 1955; (iii) Charge No. 8 : Between 10th July, 1985 and 17th August, 1985, the first respondent as a Senior Jailor of the Byculla Prison had not carried out every day surprise checks of the barracks and the Cells and his conduct demonstrated a lack of discipline, negligence and irresponsibility. "

(3.)The Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that all these three articles of charge were partially established. The Enquiry Officer took due note of the defence of the first respondent that he had informed Shri deshpande, the Superintendent of Jail. Consequently, the Enquiry Officer held that it would not be appropriate to hold the first respondent as entirely or exclusively guilty. However, the Enquiry Report found that the fact remained that even if on 12th August, 1985 the first respondent had been unable to seize the unauthorised goods, even so the first respondent did not take any steps thereafter to do so. The first respondent did not file a report of this occurrence in the Jail report Book. On 17th August, 1985, the undertrial prisoner in question, had stored unauthorised goods in a large number within the barracks for which the responsibility must attach to a number of employees from the Constables to the Superintendent. These officials had not carried out their duties to conduct surprise checks. The first respondent who was working as a Senior Jailor was on his part responsible. In the circumstances, the charges levelled against the first respondent were held to have been partially established. III