Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gulzar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 July, 2025
1
WP No. 1795 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
WRIT PETITION No. 1795 of 2020
GULZAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
.........................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Palash Kumar Tiwari- Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri V.P. Tiwari - Govt. Advocate for the respondents / State
..........................................................................................................
ORDER
(Reserved on 16.07.2025) (Pronounced on 22.07.2025) The present petition has been filed challenging the order of penalty Annexure P-9 dated 20.06.2016 as confirmed in appeal vide order dated 15.11.2019 (Annexure P-11).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a sole ground of contention in the present petition that the said termination order amounts to double jeopardy because the petitioner was earlier punished with penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect vide order (Annexure P-6) dated 19.07.2009 and therefore the petitioner once having been punished for the same set of offences, therefore, he could not be punished for the same set of misconduct for the second time, and now the penalty of dismissal has been awarded on the petitioner which is unsustainable.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 7/23/2025 5:34:15 PM 2 WP No. 1795 of 20203. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has contended that the petitioner was posted as Warder/Guard in Jail. There was allegation against him of elusive practices in facilitating absconsion of an offender/accused in crime relating to Section 302 IPC, named as Sheikh Chhuttan on 18.08.2007 from District Hospital, Damoh. The petitioner was punished in departmental proceedings vide order Annexure P-6 in the year 2009 but a criminal trial against the petitioner was pending and in the said trial he was convicted under Section 223 of IPC with one year simple imprisonment and Rs.500/-as fine on 01.10.2013 which was confirmed in appeal and thereafter CRR.977/2016 is pending before this Court. Therefore, the authorities have not punished the petitioner twice for the same offences but have only kept a convicted person out of employment, which is permissible as per rules, though the learned State counsel could not point out any Rules and render effective assistance, leaving it for this Court to search out the Rules.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. In the present case the petitioner is projecting the impugned penalty (Annexure P-9) as a case of double jeopardy on the ground that earlier he was punished for the same allegation vide Annexure P-6 in the year 2009 with penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect and now in the year 2016 against the penalty of dismissal for the same set of offence, could not be awarded to the petitioner. The exact nature of charges against the petitioner is not placed on record either by the petitioner or by the State in the reply.
6. Even the judgment of conviction has not been filed by the petitioner and only an order whereby correction of typographical mistake in the said Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 7/23/2025 5:34:15 PM 3 WP No. 1795 of 2020 judgment has been carried out, has been filed by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court has called for record of CRR 977/2016 pending before this Court, to know the exact allegations against the petitioner in criminal case.
7. Upon perusal of CRR 977/2016 it is seen that the allegation against the petitioner was that a prisoner namely Sheikh Chhuttan was sent to District Hospital, Damoh from District Jail. The petitioner was posted on duty at District Hospital Damoh to keep watch on the said accused, and he had been handcuffed with petitioner having the keys. In the intervening night the said prisoner fled from District Hospital and handcuff was found to have been opened by him. The petitioner was on duty at District Hospital, Damoh to watch the prisoner Sheikh Chhuttan from 2 am in the midnight to 6 am in the morning. When the reliever guard came to the District Hospital he found that the petitioner as well as the accused person was not available in the hospital ward and the hospital bed was vacant.
8. Later the petitioner was nabbed and the key of handcuffs was found from possession of the petitioner. Therefore, the criminal court held that the petitioner was instrumental in opening handcuffs of the prisoner and then he fled along with the prisoner. Incidentally the said prisoner remained absconded and could not be apprehended again.
9. The police / departmental authorities took note of all these facts and came to conclusion that the petitioner needs to be awarded penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect. Now after conviction of petitioner in criminal case, the petitioner has been dismissed from service by exercising powers under Rule 263, 280(d) of M.P. Prison Rules, 1968 that governs the service conditions of the petitioner being a Jail Guard/Warder.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 7/23/2025 5:34:15 PM 4 WP No. 1795 of 202010. As per Rule 280 (d), in case of a convicted Jail Guard/Warder, the cases of willfully permitting escape of prisoners shall always be subjected to prosecution by the police and it is mandatory in case of conviction by the Criminal Court, to dismiss the Warder from service, except when the Inspector General decides otherwise, looking to the long service, good character and petty nature of offence. In the present case, the I.G. did not hold so and ordered dismissal. Rule 280 of M.P. Prison Rules 1968 is as under :-
"280. For the following offences, if committed by any jail officer, a prosecution shall be instituted against the offender, provided the evidence is such as to make conviction probable, if the evidence is not sufficient for this, but is sufficient to produce reasonable belief of the guilt of the officer in the mind of the Superintendent, he shall hold a departmental enquiry:-
(a) Negligently or voluntarily permitting an escape.
(b) Any offence under section 42 of the Act relating to the introduction of or supply to prisoners of forbidden articles, unauthorised communication with prisoners and abetment of such offences.
(c) Being concerned directly or indirectly with any contract for supplies for the jail for receiving any present from a supplier.
(d) Any serious offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code or other criminal law. But wilfully permitting escape of a prisoner and serious offences under the Penal Code or other criminal law must invariably be prosecuted, and the enquiry or prosecution should ordinarily be conducted by the police. Any subordinate officer who is sentenced to imprisonment by a criminal court shall be dismissed from the service, except when retention is authorised by the Inspector-General on account of long service, good character and the petty nature of the offence for which convicted. The question of dismissal, etc., of a convicted officer shall be considered as soon as orders of his Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 7/23/2025 5:34:15 PM 5 WP No. 1795 of 2020 conviction are passed by the first court, but no substantive promotions or arrangements shall be made in the vacancy so caused until - (i) if no appeal is preferred, the date on which the period allowed for appeal expires or (ii) if any appeal is preferred, the date of orders of the highest appellate authority."
11. In the opinion of this Court, looking to the mandatory nature of Clause 280 (d) and the nature of act of the petitioner as duly found proved by the Criminal Court, despite stricter proof of the act being proved beyond reasonable doubt, the punishment of dismissal is duly justified and no question of double jeopardy arises in the matter.
12. Therefore, the question that comes down whether the department having taken against an employee convicted by the Court of law for an offence committed during the course of duty, can be retained in employment and whether notwithstanding the fact that the employer had earlier punished the employee with some punishment but retained him in service, thereafter can terminate the services only on the ground of conviction in a criminal case, is duly answered by Clause 280 (d) of M.P. Prison Rules 1968, as quoted above. The petitioner was asked to keep watch on the accused, he fled with the accused, and the handcuff was found opened and not "broken" open, the key was in possession of the petitioner and the accused was of a heinous offence, u/s 302 IPC, who could not be apprehended thereafter. If Jail warders act in this manner and the acts are found proved by the Criminal Court and the Appellate Court, the confidence of the society in jail system is bound to be shaken, and it would not be impossible to maintain peace and tranquility in society, if the accused of heinous offences escape in such manner after managing Jail guards.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 7/23/2025 5:34:15 PM 6 WP No. 1795 of 202013. Therefore, the impugned orders are hereby maintained. The petition is dismissed. If the petitioner is ultimately acquitted in pending Revision on merits, he would be at liberty to file an application for reinstatement, and not otherwise.
(VIVEK JAIN)
nks JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 7/23/2025
5:34:15 PM