LAXMI SHANKAR PANDEY versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] 1 S.C.R. 894 · Decided: 19-03-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
LAXM! SHANKAR PANDEY 
V. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
-
MARCH 19, 1991 
B 
(S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND K .. JAYACHANDRA 
REDDY, JJ.] 
" 
·Constitution of India, 
1950: Article 32.-Scope of Judicial ~ 
Review-Disputed questions of fact-Examination of. 
Service Law: Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949: Section 
C · 11-Departmental enquiry-Head Constable-Negligent in duty- ~ 
-· 
Escape of unqertrial prisoners from custody-Order of dismissal-
_..
Validity OJ. 
Natural Justice-Principles of. Departmental enquiry-Obser-
y· -
D 
Vance/applicability of particular principle/rule-To be decided on the 
facts and circumstances of each case. 
The petitioner, a Head Constable in the Central Reserve Police 
Force was charge-sheeted for negligence in his duty, resulting in the 
escape of two undertrial prisoners, who were handed over to hint for 
E 
custody. An enquiry was conducted against the petitioner, but later it J, 
was cancelled and a fresh enquiry was commenced on the charges that 
F 
he allowed a Santry to leave the santry post without arranging proper 
relief resulting in the escape of 2 undertrial prisoners; that he did not 
take immediate action to report the matter to the Head Quarters; that 
he connived the escape of the two undertrial prisoners; that he dug up a 
tttnnel to make it appear that the two undertrial prisoners escaped 
through the tunnel and that he did not hand over the guard duty roster 
thus preventing its production as evidence. 
Statement of some witnesses and that of the Petitioner were 
recorded. Only one defence witness was examined. The Enquiry Officer 
G 
submitted his report recommending disciplinary proceedings against 
-
the petitioner. On the basis of the Report, a dismissal order was passed 
against the. petitioner. The petitioner's appeal against the dismissal 
order was dismissed by the appellate authority. Revision Petition pre:_ _)_ 
ferred by him also met the same fate. 
-..;;,. 
..-
H 
In the present Writ Petition, challenging the dismissal order, the 
894 
.. 
L.S. PANDEY v. U.0.1 . 
895 
)oi(' 
petition~r cPntended that dpring the relevant tiqie, there was al:l!iolute 
shortage of personnel, pon-supply of torch or candle or kerosene aild 
absence of proper arrangements to keep custody of the undertrial pri-
spners. It was also contended that all the defence witnesses cited by him 
were not examined and that the enquiry was mala fide since the earlier 
enquiry was dropped and he was exonerated. 
The Respondents contended that no prejudice was caused to the 
)...__ petitioner since full opportunity was afforded to him, that the venue of 
the enquiry was shifted only ·to avoid unnecessary delay and the 
petitioner never objected to it during the enquiry. As regards the first 
~ __ ~ enquiry, it was 'contended that since the same was not completed and 
--
later cancelled, fresh enquiry was ordered and it did not mean that the 
petitioner was exonerated. 
--
Dismis.sing the Writ Petition, this Court, 
HELD: I. It is unnecessary to examine the scope of Article 32 of 
the Constitution in this case. Since the two undertrials were entrusted to 
the custody of the petitioner and they escaped, the responsibility was 
entirely on the petitioner. No doubt, he pleaded that the arrangements 
were inadequate and the two uildertrial prisoners took advantage, dug 
a tunnel through which they managed to escape. The, Deputy 
>--
Superintendent of Police who visited the premises inspected the same 
and made a report in which he clearly observed that there was certainly 
some negligence in not noticing the activities of the undertrial prisoners 
and therefore an enquiry was necessary. The Enquiry Officer, on the 
basis of t:he oral and documentary evidence, concluded that the 
petitioner committed an offence of neglect of duty and that he did not 
take immediate action to report the matter to the Circle Officer. The 
statements of PWs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 go to show that there was no 
~ tunnel at all when they reached the spot on hearing the alarm. It is in 
the statement of PW 2 that he saw the petitioner digging the tunnel. In 
view of these clear statements made by the PWs viz. the Constables who 
were on duty alongwith the petitioner when the two undertrials 
escaped, the Enquiry Officer was justified in recommending discipli-
nary action, and no prejudice was caused to the petitioner. [900D-H, 901A-B] 
Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochunni Moopil Nayar v. The State of 
Madras and Ors., [1959] (supp.) 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.