Supplying Ganja To Inmates Gross Misconduct: Madras HC upholds Warden's Dismissal

In a stern warning against breaches of discipline in correctional facilities, the Madras High Court has upheld the dismissal of a prison warden for supplying narcotics and maintaining prohibited familiarity with convicts, ruling that such grave misconduct warrants the highest service penalty.

Justice B. Pugalendhi, presiding over the Madurai Bench, dismissed a writ petition filed under Constitution of India by a Grade-II Warden who challenged his removal from service following a departmental enquiry into allegations of smuggling ganja and receiving illicit payments.

Key Takeaways

Zero Tolerance for Contraband Smuggling

Prison officials found facilitating the entry of prohibited substances like ganja face immediate dismissal as their actions directly compromise institutional security.

Validity of Clarificatory Questions by Enquiry Officers

In the absence of a presenting officer, an enquiry officer is legally permitted to put questions to witnesses for clarification without vitiating the principles of natural justice.

Strict Adherence to Prison Rules

Maintaining any form of familiarity, financial dealings, or correspondence with prisoners or their associates is a violation of statutory conduct rules for prison staff.

Court's Rationale on Service Discipline

The Madras High Court emphasized that members of a disciplined force are held to a higher standard of conduct. Referring to the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules 1983, the Bench noted that every prison officer has a mandatory duty to prevent the introduction of prohibited articles. Commenting upon the instant case, Madras High Court observed that “the petitioner in this case, who has a duty to prevent the introduction of contraband, has himself supplied ganja to convict prisoners. Certainly, this is a grave misconduct and violation of discipline, expected from a prison officer. Therefore, the punishment of dismissal from service, cannot be said to disproportionate and warranting the interference of this Court.” Addressing the procedural challenge regarding the Enquiry Officer questioning witnesses, the Court relied on the precedent in Mulchandani Electrical and Radio Industries Ltd. v. Workmen. The Bench dismissed the writ petition accordingly.

Ratio

The scope of judicial review in departmental proceedings is restricted to checking for perversity, violation of natural justice, or statutory procedures; Courts shall not interfere with the proportionality of a punishment unless it shocks the conscience, especially in cases involving grave misconduct by prison officials charged with maintaining law and order.

Background

The petitioner, a Grade-II Warden at Central Prison, Madurai, was dismissed following a surprise inspection on June 19, 2024, where 10 grams of ganja were seized from a prisoner. The prisoner alleged the petitioner supplied the drugs. Further investigations revealed the petitioner had visited a convict's house while the latter was on escort parole, consumed alcohol, and received multiple G-Pay payments from the convict's associate.

The petitioner challenged the dismissal, citing a violation of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules 1983, arguing that the prisoner was not examined during the formal enquiry and that the Enquiry Officer acted as a prosecutor. The respondents, relying on Union of India v. P.Gunasekaran ( "(2015) 2 SCC 610": 2014 CaseBase(SC) 744) and Union of India v. Subrata Nath ( "(2024) 20 SCC 402": 2022 CaseBase(SC) 1275), argued that the evidence, including digital transaction logs and prison registers, sufficiently proved the charges. The Madras High Court, citing State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha ( "(2010) 2 SCC 772": 2010 CaseBase(SC) 535), State of Uttranchal and Ors v. Kharak Singh ( "(2008) 8 SCC 236": 2008 CaseBase(SC) 926), and Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar ( "(2009) 12 SCC 78": 2009 CaseBase(SC) 137), held that the procedural requirements were met and the gravity of the offense justified the termination.

Case Details:
Case No.: WP(MD) NO. 6083 of 2025
CNR: HCMD010214162025
Case Title: M. Aashik Mohammed Vs 1.The Director General of Prison and Correctional Services and Others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr.Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel for M/s.Ajmal Associates
For the Respondent(s): Mr.S.Sivasubramanian, Government Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MAD) 24543