The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has quashed the departmental enquiry against three Central Jail Nagpur officers accused of extorting money from an undertrial prisoner. The court said the enquiry was not conducted in a fair manner. It held that the officers were denied an opportunity to defend themselves which violated the principles of natural justice. The judgement was delivered by a Division Bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nivedita P Mehta while hearing two connected criminal writ petitions. One petition was filed by former undertrial prisoner Madankumar Babulalji Shriwas. The other was filed by Circle Jailer Krishna Ramesh Chaudhary, who challenged the enquiry report, the departmental proceedings and the FIR registered against him and Kharde, Badi Circle Officer and Parekar, Circle Jailer. The case goes back to 2014. Shriwas was lodged in Nagpur Central Prison in connection with a murder case. He alleged that three jail officers demanded money from him to shift him to a separate barrack with better facilities. He claimed he was forced to call his relatives using a mobile phone made available inside the jail and arrange money. Shriwas alleged that more than Rs 1 lakh was collected from him by the officers.

 

He also claimed that ganja, charas, liquor, mobile phones and special food were made available inside the prison after payment of money. After getting bail, Shriwas complained to senior prison officials and Dhantoli Police Station. As no action was taken, he moved to the High Court in 2019. He sought an independent enquiry, criminal action against the officers and compensation. Taking note of the serious allegations, the High Court appointed retired District Judge E N Quazi to conduct an independent enquiry. The retired judge examined several witnesses and submitted his report in 2021. The enquiry report supported many of Shriwas’ allegations. It concluded that money had been collected from him. It also found that prohibited items like narcotics and mobile phones were provided inside the prison. The report further said that some prisoners were kept in separate barracks without medical recommendation or official approval after paying money. Based on the report, the High Court had earlier directed the State Government to start departmental proceedings against the three jail officers. An FIR was also registered at Dhantoli Police Station under Sections 384 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. While hearing the present petitions, the Division Bench closely examined both the enquiry report and the departmental enquiry.

 

The court found that the retired District Judge had recorded statements of several witnesses without giving the accused officers a chance to cross-examine them. They were also not given an opportunity to explain the allegations before findings were recorded against them. The Bench said this violated the basic principles of natural justice. It observed that even in departmental proceedings, an employee must be given a fair opportunity to defend himself. The High Court also pointed out inconsistencies in the evidence. Several witnesses did not support the allegations during the departmental enquiry. Some even stated that their statements had not been recorded by the retired judge and that they had only signed documents shown to them. The court also noted that prison records showed Shriwas had already been shifted to a separate barrack on September 9, 2014. However, he alleged that money was demanded later in September for the same purpose. The Bench said such contradictions could not be ignored. The judges observed that disciplinary proceedings are different from criminal trials. However, they stressed that charges must be clear and the enquiry must follow due process. The High Court, therefore, quashed the findings of the departmental enquiry against the three jail officers. It also set aside the enquiry report. However, the Bench rejected Shriwas’ claim for compensation. Advocate M P Kariya represented the petitioner, APP S S Doifode for State, Advocate N B Rathod for R-5, Advocate Anand Parchure for R-6, Adv Rajendra M Daga for R-7.