HC refuses to quash proceeding against prisons officer

Case against Krishna Kumar was based on report by D Roopa

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has refused to quash proceedings against Krishna Kumar, currently the chief superintendent of Central Prison, Kalaburagi. He is facing an inquiry of alleged irregularities and lapses when he worked as the superintendent of prison, Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru, which was based on a report by the then Deputy Inspector General (Prisons) D Roopa.

Security Officer Dr Anitha R also faced a joint inquiry in the matter, but the case against her was quashed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi, as it found that the allegations in the report did not relate to her duties. Krishna Kumar approached the High Court seeking parity and quashing the case against him. The HC, however, said he could not disown his responsibilities and he cannot be treated equally with his subordinate.

A division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice TG Shivashankare Gowda in their judgment said, “In our considered opinion the petitioner who worked as a chief superintendent of jail cannot take advantage of the order passed in favour of Dr Anitha R. His is not the case that he had no responsibility of administering the Central Prison. For lapses and irregularities noted by the police officer and also by the committee headed by Sri Vinay Kumar, the petitioner has to answer. He cannot disown his responsibility.”

A charge-sheet was issued against Krishna Kumar on April 3, 2018, when he was working at Parappana Agrahara, levelling six charges against him. An inquiry against him was initiated based on a report by D Roopa.

IAS officer Vinay Kumar held this preliminary inquiry based on it. Based on his report a show-cause notice was issued to Krishna Kumar. A departmental inquiry was initiated by the Government under a retired district judge. Krishna Kumar approached the Tribunal in 2018 against the departmental inquiry.

But the Tribunal rejected his application. He then approached the HC. The HC also rejected his petition recently and said, “If as per the respondents there were serious lapses in the jail administration, he has to face the inquiry and put forth all his defence before the inquiry officer.

Just because a joint inquiry was ordered against the petitioner and Dr Anitha R and that the inquiry against the latter was quashed, the petitioner cannot say that he too should be treated in the same way and no inquiry should be held against him. The Tribunal has rightly held that the petitioner cannot take advantage of the order passed by another bench of the Tribunal and that there cannot be any interference with the inquiry proceedings.”