r^- * IN THE HIGH COURT 01= DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Reserve :28.07.2010 Date of Decision :06.08.2010 + W.P.(C) 78/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus A KJAIN Respondent Through Mr.S.P.Mehta, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? MOOL CHAND GARG. I. * For orders see W.P.(C) No.51/2010 CHAND GARG> AUGUST 06, 2010 PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified S' * m THE HBGH COURT OF DELHI AT S\iEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 51/2010 o/o Date of [Reserve Date of Declsnon :0i6.0s-20il0 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Sirnran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus JAI BHAGWAN Respondent Through Nemo + W.P.(C) 58/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.AvnishAhalwat with Mrs.Sirnran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus SANJAY DAWAR, STENOGRAPHER Respondent Through Mr. S.P.Mehta, Advocate + W.P.(C) 67/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.AvnishAhalwat with Mrs.Sirnran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus DJ GUPTA Respondent Through Mr.Shyam Babu, Advocate + W.P.(C) 77/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Sirnran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh W.P.(a 51/2010 &Connected matters Paqe 1 of37 Kr.Singh, Advocates versus GEETA MALHOTRA Respondent Through Mr.S.P.Mehta, Advocate + W.P.(C) 78/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.AvnishAhalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus A KJAIN Respondent Through Mr.S.P.Mehta, Advocate WITH + W.P.(C) 81/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.AvnishAhalwatwith Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus SOHAN LAL LD.C Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate r + W.P.(C) .83/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.AvnishAhalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus RAJESH SINGH STENO Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate WITH + W.P.fC) 87/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner W.P.(C)51/2010 &Connected matters Page 2 of37 10 % Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus SHASHI SINGH Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate + W.P.(C) 88/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish AhaJwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latilo Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus KARAN SINGH YADAV ASTO Respondent Through Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Advocate + W.P.(C) 90/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.AvnishAhalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus r M SATWANT KAUR Respondent ^ Through Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Advocate + W.P.(C) 92/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.AvnishAhalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus AMAR SINGH PEON Respondent Through Mr.Sachi.n Chauhan, Advocate \N.P.(C)51/2010 &Connected matters Page_l_o[37 + W.P.(C) 112/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner Tlirougli Mrs.AvnislnAhalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus PRABHAJOSHI Respondent Through Mr.S.P.Mehta, Advocate + W.P.(C) 113/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latilo Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus MUSHTAQ AHMED, PEON Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate + W.P.(C) 114/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.AvnishAhalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus YAD RAM YADAV Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate + W.P.(C) 115/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh W.P.(C) 51/2010 &Connected matters • EmeAs?!!! 1 Kr.Singh, Advocates versus KIRAN VERMA PEON Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate + W.P.(C) 116/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.AvnishAhalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latil<a Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus A RANJIT CHOUDHARY,STENO Respondent Through Mr.S.P.Mehta, Advocate £ + W.P.(C) 117/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.AvnishAhalwat with Mrs.Sinnran, Mrs.Latilo Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus SHAMSHERSINGH UDC Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate + W.P.(C) 118/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.AvnishAhalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latil<a Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus RAM BHAJAN, PEON Respondent Through Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Advocate + W.P.(C) 119/2010 W.P.(C) 51/2010 &Connected matters Paqe 5 of37 !> % f' % GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus GANPAT SINGH Respondent Through Mr.S.P. Mehta, Advocate + W.P.fC) 123/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.AvnishAhalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latil<a Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus C P YADAV PEON Respondent Through Nemo + W.P.fC) 124/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.AvnishAhalwatwith Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and IMr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus AJAY KUMAR STENOGRAPHER Respondent Through Nemo + W.P.fO 129/2010 • GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.AvnishAhalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus W.P.(C)51/POlO&Connectedmatters Paqe 6 of37 SHRl CHAND Respondent Through Mr. S.P. Mehta, Advocate + W.P.(C) 130/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.AvnishAhalwatwith Mrs.Sinnran, Mrs.Latil<a Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus SWARAN GUJRAL Respondent Through Mr.S.P.Mehta, Advocate + W.P.(C) 131/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.AvnishAhalwatwith Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus BRAHAM SINGH PEON Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate + W.P.(C) 265/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwatwith Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus VEENAANAND Respondent Through Mr.Ajay K.Sharma, Advocate W.P.(C) 51/2010 & Connected matters Page 7 of 37 + W.P.(C) 1084/2010 ' GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.THROUGH COMMISSIONER,TRADE TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.AvnishAhalwat with Mrs.bimran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus ANIL KUMAR Respondent Through Mr.Abhay Kumar and Mr.Tenzing Tsering, Advocate + W.P.(C) 1172/2010 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.THROUGH COMMISSIONER,TRADE& TAXES Petitioner ' Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latil<a Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus SMT.VIMLASEHGAL Respondent Through Mr.Arvind Nayar, Advocate WITH + W.P.(C) 1857/2010 GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI & OTHERS • Petitioner Through Mrs.AvnishAhalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latil<a Choudhary and Mir.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus PHOOL SINGH Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate + W.P.(C) 1858/2010 GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, W.P.(C)51/2010 &Connected matters Page 8 of 37 Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus BRAHAM SINGH,LDC Respondent Through Mr.S.P.Mehta, Advocate + W.P.fC) 3644/2010 GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Petitioner Through Mrs.AvnishAhalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus ASHWANI KUMARI Respondent Through Nemo + W.P.fC) 4437/2010 GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS Petitioner Through Mrs.AvnishAhalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus rSJEPH Respondent Through Nemo WITH + W.P.fC) 3056/2010 GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS THROUGH PRINCIPALSECRETARY(HOME) Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus W.P.(C) 51/2010 & Connected matters Page_9j3L37 RAJ KUMAR Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate + W P.fC) 13806/2009 GOVT OF NCT OF DELFil AND ORS TFIROUGFI PRINCIPAL SECRETARY(HOME) Petitioner Through Mrs.AvnishAhalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus DIGAMBERSINGH Respondent Through Mr.G.D.Gupta,Sr.Advocatewith Mr.S.K.Sinha, Advocate + W.P.(C) 49/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DEKHI & ORS THROUGH PRINCIPALSECRETARY Petitioner Through Mrs.AvnishAhalwatwith Mrs.Sin-iran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus KRISHAN KUMAR Respondent Through Nemo + W.P.fC) 50/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH PRINCIPALSECRETARY(HOME) Petitioner Through Mrs.AvnishAhalwatwith Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus VINOD KASHYAP Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate ]N.P.(C)51/2010&Connectedmatters ' Paqe 10 of37 (h Margaret: "Father, that man's bad." More: "There is no law against that." Roper: "There is! God's law!" More: "Then God can arrest him. I know what's legal, not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal ... 1am not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm not a voyager. But in the thickets of the law. Oh, there I'm a forester." Roper would not be appeased and he levelled the charge that More would give even the Devil the benefit ~ oflaw. More: "Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?" Roper: "I'd cut down every law in Englandto do that!" More: "Oh?....And when the last was down, and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws from coast to coast - man's law, not God's - and if you cut them down -...D'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?...Yes, I'd give the [Devil the benefit of law, for my owo safety's sake." 2 The very question which confronts us in this matter is as to whether the reasoning of the respondents concluding that it was not 'reasonabSy practscable' to hold an enquiry before dismissingthe respondentsfrom their services by invoking second proviso to sub clause (b) of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India in the prevailingcircumstances at the relevant time was justifiedor not. 3. The circumstances in which enquiry can be dispensed with now stands explained in the guidelines forming part of Rule 19 of the CCS(CCA) Rules after the pronouncement of the judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. W.P.(C)51/2010 &Connected matters Page 12 of 37 + W.P.(C) 721/2007 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS Petitioner Through Mr.Rajesh Kapoorwith Mr.Mitesh, Singh, Advocates versus R.D. BOHET Respondent Through Mr.A.K.Behra,Mr.K.C.Baliasingh, Advocate CORAH: HOSSl'BLE NR. jySTBCE PIRADEEP MAMDRAJOG HOSM'BLE JUSTICE WOOL CHAEMD GARG 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be Yes allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes 3. Whetherthe judgmentshould be reported in Yes the Digest? MOOL CHAMP GARG. I- * 1. We preface our decision by noting the argument of learned counselfor the petitioners,being that so reprehensibleis the conduct of the respondents,who have been caught literally with their pants down of acceptingbribe that this Court ought to extend no benefitto the respondents. It was urged that law has to be interpreted,in the instant case, keeping in view the grave misdemeanour of the respondents. In other words, the counsel for the petitionersurged that the respondentsare not entitledto any hearing.The aigumentis emotional and is rejected at the outset for the reason a system governed by the rule of law requires dispute resolution as per law. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners can be best repelled by noting a dialogue between Sir Thomas More on the one side and his daughter Margret and his son-in-law Roper in the play "A Man For All Seasons" by Robert Bolt. It refers to an incident when SirThomas More was urged by his daughter, Margaret, and his son-in- law, Roper, to arresta man they regardedas evil. The dialogueis as under:- W.P.fO 51/2010&Connectedmatters Paqe11 of37 / 4. In the aforesaid matters petitioners after telecast of news item captioned Programme 'Vishesh' with caption 'Ghoos Mahal' on 08.03.2005 at about 9:30 p.m. by T.V. news channel 'Aaj Tak' wherein respondentsposted in Tihar Jail were shown accepting money from the persons lodged in jail and from those coming to meet them; respondents posted in Trade and Tax Department were shown negotiating and accepting money from public for doing undue favours, as a kneejerk reaction suspended all the respondents. The petitioners also lodged an FIR against all the respondents under Sections 7, 12, and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act on 09.03.2005 itself. 5. Later on, vide separate orders dated 27.09.2005 passed in the case of respondents working in Tihar Jail and vide orders dated 08.09.2006 passed in the case of employees working in Trade and Tax Department of the said State Government the petitioners dismissedtheir services without holding any domestic enquiry on the pretextthat the owners of the T.V. News Channel 'Aaj Tak' refused to associate themselves with any enquiry/investigationas may be conducted in the matter. 6. These orders were challenged by the respondents by filing appeals and supplementaryappeals before the Appellate Authority which were dismissed with the only modification of conveiting 'dismissal' to 'removal'. 7 7he respondents than approached the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi. Astrange situationarose before the Tribunal, in as much as O.A. No.2884/2005, 2005/2005, 2897/2005, 2899/2005 and 2898/2005 were dismissed vide order dated 13.04.2006; while a petition filed by One R.D.Bohet being O.A.No.778/2006was allowed by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 24.11.2006 without referring the matter to larger bench. Awrit petition bearing No.721/2007was also filed before this Court against the order passed on 24.11.2006 which stands admitted and is now being taken for disposal with other connected matters by this common order. W.P.(C) 51/2010 & Connected matters 8. The Original Applications (O.As.) filed by the respondents were referred however to a larger Bench in view of the conflict of opinions in the two coordinate Bench of the Tribunal and were adjourned sine die in view of the pendency of W.P.(C) No. 721/2007. Later on, on an applicationfiled by the applicantin OA No. 2561/2006,larger Bench revived the matters and disposed all of them vide order dated 31.08.2009 which is the common order impugned before us and is subjectmatterof the writ petitions.Variousquestionswere framed by the full bench includingthe proprietyof the later co-ordinatebench of the tribunal deciding the matter contrary to the earlier view of the Tribunal without referring the matter to a larger Bench. We are howeverconcerned with the followingquestion giving rise to the filing of the petitions before us; i) Whetherin the facts and circumstancesof the case, the power conferredby clause (b) of the second proviso to Article311(2) of the Constitutionread with Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification,Control and Appeal) Rules, 1985 can be justifiablyinvokedand the impugned order sustained. •9. The common ground taken by the respondentsin the appeals filed before the AppellateAuthorityas also before the Tribunal was, that the reason given in the two orders dismissingthe respondent "that the News of Aaj Tak news channel declined in writing to allow their reporters and journaliststo join in any investigation into the conduct of the applicant and consequently the case of the department become weak" for dispensing with the enquiry was contraryto Rule of Law not sufficientfor reaching to the Conclusion that it was not practicableto hold the enquiry. It is also stated that the decision was also in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government of India itself for invoking clause (b) of 2"^ Proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. 10. The three conditions mentioned in sub-clause (6) to Flule 19 of the CCS (CCA), relevant for invoking of sub-clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) provides that; W.P.fC) 51/2010 &Connectedmatters Paqe 14 of37 (a) Where a civil servant, alone or together with his associates terrorizes, threatens or intimidates witnesses who are likely to give evidence against him with fear or reprisal in order to prevent them from doing so; or (b) Where the civil servant by himself or though others threatens, intimidates and terrorizes the officer who is the disciplinaryauthority or members of his family • so that the officer is afraid to hold the enquiry or direct it to be held; or (c) Where an atmosphere of violence or of general indisciplineand insubordinationprevails at the lime of the attempt to hold the enquiry is made 11. The disciplinaryauthority is not expected to dispense with a disciplinaryenquiry lightly or arbitrarilyor out of ulteriormotives or merely in order to avoid the holding of an enquiry or because the Department'scase againstthe civil servantis weak and is, therefore, bound to fall. 12. Before the AppellateAuthority,respondentssubmittedthat the Orders passed by the disciplinaryAuthority in these cases do not meet the aforesaidtest and thus the orders impugned in appeal were .liable to be set aside. Furtherthe respondentsdenied the allegations such as acceptanceof money, allegationof existenceof compactdisc showing alleged persecution and corresponding with persons or relatives of persons and receiving money not owned by the respondents, etc. They also questioned the authenticity of the compactdiscs. It was also stated that in the order it was not even alleged that the respondentin any mannertried to contactthe news channel or tried to influence or terrorize witnesses. It was also submitted that when regular departmental enquiry was ordered in case of similarlysituated person i.e. one Dr.A.K.Bachawatthere was no reason to discriminatewith the respondents. Howeverthe appeals were dismissed vide common order dated 21.Iz.2005 and 24.10.2007 except that the decision to dismiss was converted in 'Removal'. 13. It is thereafter the respondents approached the Tribunal where also similar issues were raised. The Tribunal allowed the applications vide common order dated 31.9.2009 holding that the orders W.P.(C)5112010 Connectedmatters Paqe I-b of37 dismissing the respondents after concluding that it was not reasonably practicable.to hold a departmental enquiry in these cases were not sustainable in law. The petitioners aggrieved from the aforesaid order filed the aforesaid writ petitions. 14. The order of dismissal passed in the case of Digambar Singh, an employee of Tihar Jail, (CWP No.13806/2009)which is similar to all other cases ofTiharJail Employeessetting out the reason for adopting the procedureas per the proviso of Sub clause 2 (b) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India is reproduced for the sake of reference: "Office of the Director General (Prisons) Prisons Headquarters: Tihar: New Delhi Fll(659):CJ:Vigilance:2005:2187 Dated 27/9/015 WHEREAS onthe4th May, 2005 at about 9.30 PM, a news item was telecast on the AAj Tak news channel over Televisionwith the caption,"TiharJail bana Ghoos maha! ; AND WHEREAS Shri Digambar Singh, Warder-599 posted at CentralJail No.2,TiharJail, New Delhi was shown acceptingmoney in lieu of favoursto be extendedeitherto prisonerslodged in Jails or to those intendingto meet them in contravention of the provisionsof the Delhi Prisons Act, 2000 (Delhi Act 2 of 2002) and the rules made thereunder read with the Delhi Jail Manual; AND WHEREAS the said Shri Digambar Singh, Warder-599 was placed under suspension vide this office order no. F-ll(Misc.)/CJ/Vig./2005/998-1011dated 4^^ May, 2005 and furthera case FIR No. 25/2005dated the 5^; M^ay, 2005 was registered,amongstothers, againstthe said Shri DigambarSingh, Warder-599 under Sections 7,12 and 13 of the Prevention of CorruptionAct, (49 of 1988) with the Police Station, Anti Corruption Banch, Old Secetariat; Delhi; AND WHEREAS the above misconduct on the part of the said Shri DigambarSingh, Warder-599 is in violationof the following provisionsofthe Delhi PrisonsAct 2000 (Delhi Act 2 of 2002) and the rules made thereunder read with the provisions of the DelhiJail Manal, namely; "Section 9 of the Delhi Prisons Act. 2000 (Delhi Act 2 of 2002) Officers not to have business dealing with prisoners and others:- W.P.fC) 51/2010 &Connectedmatters Paqe 16 of37 (1) No officer of a prison shall sell or let, nor shall any person in trust oremployedby him sell or let, orderive any benefit from selling or letting, any article to any prisoner o have any money or other business dealings, directly or indirectly with any prisoner. (2) No officer of a prison shall accept any gift from a prisoner or a person having any dealings with prison administration. I Rule 145 of Delhi Prisons (Inspection. Meetings and Diite. of Officers) Rules 1988 (1) No subordinateofficershall, otherwisethan with the special permissionof the Superintendent,at any time;- (a) Correspond or hold any intercourse oP communication of any kind whatever with any relatr^/e or ^ friend of any prisoners: mfk (b) hold any unauthorized communicationof any kind whatsoever with any prisoner; (C ) correspond or hold any intercourse whatever with any discharged prisoner; or (d) permit any discharge prisoner or any relative or intend of any such prisoner to visit or remain at his quarters (2) No subordinate officershall at any time;- (a) hold any uncessaryconversewith any prisoner: (b) treat any prisoner with familiarity; or (c ) discuss any matter relating to the discipline or regulations of the jail with or within the hearing of any prisoner: The conduct clearly establishes that the said Shri Digambar Singh, Warder-599 had expressed his ready willingnessto extend undue facilitiesand conveniencesin lieu of monetary consideration and this amounted to grave misconduct unbecoming of a government servant and in violation of the Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964; AND WHEREAS the relevant compact disc has also been seen by me; AND WHEREAS further the identity of the said Shri DigambarSingh, Warder-599has also been established by a Committee of three jail officers constituted by the Director-General (Prisons) vide order No.F.ll/Misc./CJ/Vig./2005/12/2dated 26^'' May, 2005. On W.P.(C)51/2010&Connectedmatters Pag^U of37 the 2"'' June, 2005 vide Comnnittee report diary No. 1643/SCJ(HQ)dated 2"^ June, 2005; AND WHEREAS the videotape footage indicated that the money thus paid for extending undue facilities and conveniences to persons visiting on prisoners was in violation of the Delhi Prisons Act, 2000 (Delhi Act 2 of 2002) and the rules made thereunder read with the provisions of DelhiJail Manual; AND WHEREASit is clear that the said Shri Diganibar Singh, Warder-599 was not receiving money genuinely owed'byhim and the overwhelmingpresumptionthat can be drawn from this is that the said Shri Digambar Singh, Warder-599 was receiving illegal gratification as consideration in lieu of assurance to carry out various unauthorized and illegal requests which could not have been by way of(a) paymentofhis salary, (b) his receiving loans, (c) his receiving back loans/othermoney owed to him and (d) due to any other genuine or reasonable ground; AND WHEREAS the owners of AAj Tak news channel have •categorically declined in writing to allow their reporters and journaliststo join in any investigationinto the conduct of the said Shri DigambarSingh, Warder-599 in respectofnews telecastmade on 4"^ May, 2005. In view of this, I am satisfied that it has not been reasonably practicableto hold any departmentalenquiry. In view of this, during any such departmentalproceedings,had such enquiry been ordered, such crucial witnesses as the reporters/journalistsof the Aaj Tak TV network would not have appearedfor tenderingevidenceduring the enquiry; AND WHEREAS further the said Shri Digabar Singh, Warder-599 is an employee of a particularly sensitive departmentlike TiharJail, and, therefore,it was expected of him to conduct himselfwith a high standard of integrity and honesty, but he did not do so; AND WHEREAS in the Tihar Jail 'there is a wide varietyofprisonershoused, many of whom are undertrials with previousconvictions,convictsinvolvedin murder/rape and other heinous offences, convicts involved in offences under the Arms Act. Explosive Act as also the NDPS Act and further TADA and POTA undertrials, dangerous prisonerslike those involvedin the attack on Pailiameiiton 13^" December, 2001 and other death sentence convicts and dangerous criminals transferred from other States, to mention a few. In these circumstances, given the propensityof the said Shri DigambarSingh, Warder-599to accept favours and give information in lieu of illegal gratification, the very security of Tihar itself could be W.P-JC)51/2Q1Q&Connectedmatters Paoe18 of37 jeopardized. Also, officials involved in such acts 0/ misconduct can be instrumental in doing anything, ranging from fostering disaffection among prisoners facilitating their escape, to even facilitatingan attacl< on the prison from external sources. NOW, THEREFORE, in view of the above narrated facts and keeping in view the overall circumstances of the case I, R.P.Singh, DirectorGeneral (Prisons), in exercise of the powers conferredby clause (b) ofthe second provisoto Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India read with rule 19 of Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, hereby order that Shri Digambar Singh, Warder-599 shall stand dismissed from service with immediate