The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has upheld the dismissal of a Grade-II Warden of the Central Prison, Madurai, holding that in the absence of a presenting officer the enquiry officer may put clarificatory questions to witnesses, and that the limited scope of judicial review in departmental proceedings did not warrant interference.
Madurai: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition by a Grade-II Warden of the Central Prison, Madurai, against his dismissal from service in departmental proceedings over allegations of supplying ganja to a prisoner, consuming alcohol at a convict’s house and receiving money from the convict’s friend, holding that an enquiry officer may put clarificatory questions to witnesses where no presenting officer is appointed [M. Aashik Mohammed v. The Director General of Prison and Correctional Services and Others].
Justice B. Pugalendhi declined to interfere with the order of dismissal passed by the Superintendent of Prisons on September 25, 2024, and with the appellate order of the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons dated February 4, 2025. The findings against the Warden were reached in departmental proceedings, and the judgment does not record any criminal case or conviction.
The case
A special team conducted a surprise inspection at the Central Prison, Madurai on June 19, 2024, on secret information, and about 10 grams of ganja was seized from a prisoner. The prisoner gave a written statement that he had received it from the petitioner on June 10, 2024, near the Bakery Unit, while the petitioner was on para duty. Ganja was also recovered from another prisoner the same day, who said he got it from the first prisoner.
In a preliminary enquiry, the petitioner stated that he had visited the house of a convict who was on escort parole, along with another Grade-II Warden, and consumed alcohol there, and that he had received Rs 5,000 through G-Pay from a friend of the convict. He was suspended on June 21, 2024, and a charge memo was issued on August 1, 2024 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, alleging violation of Rules 126, 134(2), 146, 147 and 298 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983 and Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules. The enquiry officer found the charges proved, and the Superintendent dismissed him from service. His appeal was rejected.
What the petitioner argued
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Ajmal Khan argued that the prisoner whose statement formed the basis of the ganja allegation was not examined in the departmental proceedings, that no CCTV footage was marked, and that the petitioner was on leave on June 10, 2024. He submitted that a prisoner on escort parole is escorted by the police at all times and no escort was examined, and that the enquiry officer relied solely on the preliminary enquiry, whose evidence was recorded behind the petitioner’s back.
He also argued that the enquiry officer himself cross-examined witnesses and acted as the presenting officer, as none was appointed, which vitiated the proceedings for breach of natural justice, and that the Rs 5,000 had no nexus with the ganja allegation and was repaid before the proceedings began. He relied on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, State of Uttranchal v. Kharak Singh and Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar.
What the State argued
Government Advocate S. Sivasubramanian submitted for the respondents that the petitioner’s plea that he was not on duty on June 10, 2024 was incorrect, since the bakery para book and the in and out register showed that he reported at about 10.05 am and left at about 6.49 pm. He said that the petitioner had admitted the visit to the convict’s house and the receipt of money, and that the enquiry officer found four transfers of Rs 5,000 each from the convict’s friend between September 2022 and June 2024. He added that the petitioner had been allowed to peruse the documents and had submitted explanations, and that the misconduct was grave for a member of a disciplined force. He relied on Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, Union of India v. Subrata Nath and a Madras High Court decision in G. Krishnan v. Additional Director General of Prisons.
The Court’s reasoning
Justice Pugalendhi began by noting that judicial review in departmental proceedings is limited. Courts refrain from interfering with findings of fact except where they are perverse, natural justice is violated or statutory procedure is breached, and they do not interfere with the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks the conscience.
On the plea that there was no evidence, the Court noted that the petitioner’s presence in the prison on June 10, 2024 was established from the bakery para book and the in and out register. It also noted that the petitioner admitted the visit to the convict’s house and the receipt of money, that the other Warden gave a statement confirming the visit, and that the friend of the convict was examined as the petitioner’s own witness and admitted sending the money. Screenshots of the G-Pay transactions were marked in the enquiry, and the Court said the contention that the enquiry officer reached his conclusion without any evidence could not be countenanced.
The Court rejected the plea that the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity, noting that he perused the documents, submitted explanations on August 20 and September 20, 2024 and cross-examined the department’s witness. On the absence of a presenting officer, it relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mulchandani Electrical and Radio Industries Ltd. v. Workmen, which held that where no one appears for the management the enquiry officer may put questions to witnesses for clarification, and if the witnesses are then allowed to be cross-examined, the enquiry cannot be termed unfair. Merely because the enquiry officer put questions to witnesses, the Court held, the principles of natural justice were not violated.
The Prison Rules and the punishment
The Court observed that the petitioner himself admitted consuming alcohol at a convict’s house and receiving money from the convict’s friend. It noted that Rule 146 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules forbids familiarity with prisoners and Rule 147 bars a prison officer from having dealings or correspondence with the friends or relatives of a prisoner. It added that Rule 134(2) casts a duty on every prison officer to prevent the introduction of prohibited articles to prisoners, and held that a Warden with that duty who himself supplies ganja to convicts commits a grave misconduct and violates the discipline expected of a prison officer. The punishment of dismissal, it concluded, could not be said to be disproportionate, and the writ petition was dismissed.
Why it matters
The judgment applies two settled service-law principles. A departmental enquiry without a presenting officer is not unfair merely because the enquiry officer asks clarificatory questions, so long as the delinquent can cross-examine afterwards, and courts will not reappreciate the evidence in a departmental case unless the findings are perverse or the procedure is breached. It also shows how heavily the Court weighed the petitioner’s own admissions and the documentary record, such as the registers and the payment screenshots, in holding that the findings had evidence to support them.
The petitioner had contended that the prisoner who named him was not examined in the enquiry, and the Court’s discussion of the evidence rests on the other material noted above. The findings are those of the departmental authorities, as upheld on limited judicial review, and they are not a determination in any criminal proceeding.
Case Title: M. Aashik Mohammed v. The Director General of Prison and Correctional Services and Others [WP(MD) No. 6083 of 2025]
Bench: Justice B. Pugalendhi, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court
Date of Judgment: September 28, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Ajmal Khan, for M/s Ajmal Associates, appeared for the petitioner, and Government Advocate S. Sivasubramanian appeared for the respondents.