VED MITIER GILL versus UNION TERRITORY ADMINISTRATION, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

Citation: [2015] 5 S.C.R. 73 · Decided: 26-03-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. KHEHAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015) 5 S.C.R. 73 
73 
VED MITIER GILL 
A 
v. 
UNION TERRITORY ADMINISTRATION, CHANDIGARH 
AND OTHERS 
B 
(Civil Appeal No. 3194 of 2015 etc.) 
MARCH 26, 2015. 
[JAG DISH SINGH KHEHAR AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] 
C 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Art. 311(2) second proviso, clause (b}- Compliance 
of- Jail .break incident - Four under trials, three facing trial 0 
for assassination of former Punjab Chief Minister, and one 
tried for charge of murder - Escape from jail by digging 94 
feet long underground tunnel - Dismissal of appellant and 
petitioners-four jail staff, two of them discharging duties in 
the capacity of Deputy Superintendent of Jail, and other two E 
as Head Warder and Warder respectively, on account of 
lapses committed by them - Said order passed by Advisor 
to the Administrator; Union Territory exercising powers u/Art. 
311(2) clause (b) to the second proviso, on holding that it 
was not practicable to hold an inquiry- Said order upheld by F 
Administrator, Union Territory and thereafter, by the tribunal 
as also High Court - On appeal, held: All the parameters 
laid down for a valid/legal application of clause (b) to the 
second proviso u/Art. 311 (2), duly complied with -Punishment 
of dismissal from service was fully justified, as evaluation of G 
the duties and responsibilities of the jail staff showed that 
their delinquency resulted in the escape of four dreaded 
prisoners- Competent authority was satisfied that it was not 
reasonably practicable to hold a departmental proceeding H 
73 
74 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 5 S.C.R. 
A against the jail staff and the competent authority had recorded 
reasons for its satisfaction. 
Art. 311 (2) second proviso, clause (b) - Invocation of 
- Requirement of satisfaction of three ingredients -
B Explained. 
Punjab Jail Manual - Post of Deputy Superintendent 
Jail, Assistant Superintendent Jail, Head Warder and Warder 
- Duties and responsibilities - Nature of - Held: 
c Responsibility of jail inmates exclusively rests on the 
shoulders of the jail staff- Within the jail premises, only the 
jail staff can be permitted to function and in case of lapses 
within the jail premises, it is the jail staff alone which is 
responsible. 
D 
• Dismissing the appeal and the transferred cases, 
the Court 
• 
HELD: 1.1 For invoking clause (b) of the second 
E proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, three 
ingredients should be satisfied. The first ingredient, 
which is a prerequisite to the sustainable application of 
the clause (b) to the second proviso under Article 311(2) 
is, that the delinquency alleged should be such as would 
F justify, any one of the three punishments, namely, 
dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. The perusal of 
the order whereby, the appellant-VMG was dismissed 
from service, with immediate effect reveals, that the 
punishment was based on reasons recorded in the 
G impugned order. One of the component of the impugned 
order was with regard to the material taken into 
consideration to evaluate the lapses committed by the 
appellant/petitioners, as would reveal their involvement 
H with reference to the alleged delinquency, justifying the 
punishment of dismissal from service. [Para 20) [115-G-
VED MITIER GILL v. UNION TERRITORY ADMN., 
75 
CHANDIGARH 
H; 116-A-B, D-F] 
A 
1.2 The responsibility of all the jail inmates (safe 
custody of all prisoners) rested on the shoulders of VMG 
and the petitioners who assisted him in the same. The 
petitioners were associated with the appellant and B 
assisted him in discharging his said duties. Had the 
appellant-VMG, and the petitioners, performed their 
duties diligently, there could not have been any 
possibility, of the escape under reference. Separate 
reasons were expressed, by the competent authority in C 
arriving at its conclusion. The impugned order fully 
establishes the inferences recorded. The determination 
by 
the 
competent authority, 
when 
viewed 
dispassionately with reference to the duties assigned 0 
to VMG, leaves no room for any doubt, that the 
competent authority was justified in concluding, that the 
four prisoners could never have escaped, if the 
appellant-VMG, and the petitioners, had diligently 
discharged the duties assigned to them. Having so E 
concluded, 
about 
the 
responsibility 
and 
blameworthiness of the appellant/petitioners, there can 
be no doubt that the punishment of dismissal from 
service, was fully justified, as their delinquency had 
resulte

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