Court says warden’s conduct in visiting a convict’s house, consuming liquor, receiving money via G-Pay and allegedly passing contraband into prison amounted to grave misconduct warranting dismissal.
The Madras High Court’s Madurai Bench has dismissed a writ petition filed by a Grade-II Prison Warden challenging his dismissal from service, holding that the departmental inquiry against him was fair, supported by evidence, and did not suffer from any violation of natural justice.
Justice B. Pugalendhi delivered the order in WP(MD) No. 6083 of 2025, filed by M. Aashik Mohammed, who was working as a Grade-II Warden in the Central Prison, Madurai. The petitioner had been dismissed from service on 25 September 2024, and his departmental appeal was also rejected on 4 February 2025.
The case arose from a surprise inspection conducted by a special prison team on 19 June 2024, during which 10 grams of ganja was seized from a prisoner, Vilson Gabriel. According to the prison authorities, the prisoner stated in writing that he had received the contraband from the petitioner while the latter was on para duty in the prison bakery unit on 10 June 2024.
The disciplinary proceedings also alleged that the petitioner had visited the house of a convict prisoner on escort parole, consumed alcohol there along with another warden, and received Rs.5,000 through G-Pay from a friend of the convict. The enquiry further found that the petitioner had supplied ganja to prisoners, and that another prisoner had also been found in possession of contraband on the same day.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the entire disciplinary process was vitiated because the prisoner who made the allegation was not examined, CCTV footage was not produced, and he was allegedly absent from duty on the relevant date. He also contended that the enquiry officer had improperly acted like a presenting officer by putting questions to witnesses, and that he had not been given a fair opportunity to defend himself.
The Court rejected these submissions. It noted that the petitioner’s presence in the prison on 10 June 2024 was established through the bakery para book and the in-and-out register. The Court also relied on the petitioner’s own admissions regarding his visit to the convict’s house and receipt of money from the convict’s friend. The G-Pay transaction screenshots and witness statements, including that of the petitioner’s own witness, were also considered sufficient evidence to sustain the findings.
On the issue of natural justice, the Court held that the absence of a presenting officer did not invalidate the enquiry. Referring to Supreme Court precedent, the Court observed that an enquiry officer may ask clarificatory questions to witnesses, provided the witnesses are allowed to be cross-examined. Since the petitioner had perused documents, submitted explanations, and cross-examined witnesses, the Court found that he had been given adequate opportunity to defend himself.
The Court also emphasized the serious nature of the misconduct. It held that prison officers are prohibited from maintaining familiarity with prisoners or their relatives and are duty-bound to prevent the introduction of prohibited articles into prison. Instead of preventing contraband, the petitioner was found to have allegedly supplied ganja to prisoners himself. The Court said such conduct amounted to grave misconduct and was wholly incompatible with prison service discipline.
Finding no perversity, procedural illegality, or disproportion in the punishment, the High Court declined to interfere with the dismissal order. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
Bottom Line :
Departmental proceedings against prison warden - Limited scope of judicial review - Enquiry not vitiated merely because no presenting officer was appointed and Enquiry Officer put clarificatory questions to witnesses - Admission of visiting convict prisoner on parole, consuming liquor with him, receiving money from convict's friend and evidence regarding supply of ganja to prisoner justified dismissal - Punishment not disproportionate.
Statutory provision(s): Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, Rule 17(b), Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983, Rules 126, 134(2), 146, 147 and 298, Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, Rule 20(1)
