* 0/o + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 58/2010 Date of Reserve :28.07.2010 Date of Decision :06.08.2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus SANJAY DAWAR, STENOGRAPHER ..... 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, J. * For orders see W.P.(C) No.51/2010 ~44 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 * ~ff\!1 1"~-~IE ~-~BGIHl COlURT Of IDliElHB AT NIIEW IDIEliHIB ... + W.P.(C) 51/2010 % Date o1f !Reserve :28.07 .2(Q)l0 !Date of IDedsuon :06.08.2010 GOVT OF NCT QF DELI-II AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus JAI BHAGWAN + W.P.(C) 58/2010 ..... Respondent Through Nemo W~TIHI GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.l\litesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus SANJAY DAWAR, STENOGRAPHER ..... Respondent Through MI-. S.P.Mehta, Advocate WITIHI + W.P.(C) 67/2010 - GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... Petitioner . Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.l\litesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus D J GUPTA ..... Respondent Through Mr.Shyam Babu, Advocate W~TB-!1 + . w. p. (c) 7 7/2 010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... Petitioner Througl1 Mrs.Avnish Al1alwat witl1 Mrs.Simran, M·rs.Latika Cl1oudhary and.-Mr.l\litesh . ~ W.l'.(Cl....2lilOID & Connected matters Paqe·l of37 . . ... . -~- ·-----------.-- ----------·-· l<r.Singh, Advocates Vei"SUS GEETA MALHOTRA ..... Respondent Througl~ Mr.S.P.Mehta, Advocate W~TH. + 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 Clloudhary and Mr.Nitesll l<r.Singh, Advocates· versus A I<JAII\1 . . .... Respondent Tl1rough Mr.S.P.Mehta, Advocate WITJHl + W.P.(C) 81/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, · TRADE AND TAXES ..... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Si111ran, Mrs.Latika Cl1oudhary and Mr.l\litesh l<r.Singh, Advocates -versus SOHAN LAL L.D.C · .. ~ .. Respondent - Through Mr.Sachin Cl1aul1an, Advocate WITD-11 + W.P.(C) 83/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS TH8-0UGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran·, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus RAJESH SINGH STENO ..... Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Ch~uhan, Advocate W~TIHI + W.P.(C) 87/2010 GO\/T OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AI\ID TAXES ..... Petitioner W.P.(C) 51!2010 & Connected matters Page 2 of37 )o Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Cl1oudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr;Singh, Advocates versus SHASHI SINGH ..... Respondent . Through Mr.Sachin Chaul1an, Advocate WITH -1- W.P.(C) 88/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONeR, TRADE AND TAXES ..... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Cl1oudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus KARAN SINGH YADAV ASTO ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sachin Chaul1an, Advocate W~TD-R + W.P.(C) 90/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE: A.ND TAXES ..... Petitioner . Through Mrs.Avnish Abalwat with Mrs.Sim1·an, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus SATWANT KAUR · ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Advocate . , V\f~TH + W.P.(C) 92/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES . .. ... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and M1·.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus - AMAR SINGH PEON ..... Respondent . Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, .Advocate W.P.(C) 5112010 & Connected matters Page 3 of 37 J } + WRTH .. W.P.(C) 112/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES · ..... Petitioner PRABHAJqSHI Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Sirnran, Mrs.Latika ·Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh l<r.Singh, Advocates · · versus ..... Respondent Through Mr.S.P.Mehta, Advocate + W.P.(C) 113/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES . .. ... Petitioner · versus Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Sirnran, Mrs.Latika Choudl1ary and Mr.Nitesh l<r.Singh, Advocates MUSHTAQ AHMED, PEON ..... Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chaul1an, Advocate '\1\UITIHI + W.P.(C) 114/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... Petitioner . Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Sirnran, !VII-s.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh l<r.Singll, Advocates versus YAD RAM YADAV ..... Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate \/VITIHI · + W.P.(C) 115/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with M1·s.Sirnran, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.l\litesh Ytf.P.(C) 51!2010 & Connec:ted matters Page 4 of 37 ------ -------- - .- Kr.Singh, Advoc_atE7s versus KIRAN VERMA PEON ..... Resp.ondent : . Through Mr.Sachin Cl1auhan, Advocate WBTIHI + _W.P.(C) 116/2010 GO\/T OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... Petitioner . Through Mrs.Avnish Al1alwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus RANJIT CHOUDHARY, STENO . . .... Resr:>ondent Through Mr.S.P.Mehta, Advocate WITIHl + W.P.( C) 117/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, .- TRADE AND TAXES ..... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus SHAfVISHER SINGH UDC ..... Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate W\IITII-0 + W.P.(C) 118/2010 . GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat witl1 Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus RAM BHAJAI\1, PEON ..... Respondent Tl1rough Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Advocate WBTII-0 + W.P.(C) 119/2010 )LV.P.(CJ 51/2010 &, Co!mected matters Page 5 of 37 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... Petitioner Through Mrs.AvnJsh Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus GANPATSINGH ..... Respondent Tl1rough Mr.S.P. Mehta, Advocate WBTHI + W:P.(C) 123/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES . ~ .... Petitioner · Througll Mrs.f.vnisll Ahalwat with Mrs.Sim,·an, versus Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates C P YADAV PEON ..... Respondent Through Nemo + W.P.(C) 124/2910 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... Petitioner . Througl1 Mrs.Avnisll Allalwat with Mrs.Sim~an, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and .Mi-.Nitesh Kr.Singll, Advocates versus AJAY KUMAR STENOGRAPHER Thrqugh Nemo ..... Respondent W~TIH + W.P.(C) 129/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI TH-ROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Chouclhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Adv.ocates versus W.P.(C) 51!20.10 r;, Connected matters Page 6 of 37 SHRICHAND ..... Respondent Through Mr. S.P. Mehta, Advocate . W~TIHI + W.P.(C) 130/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Cl1ouclhary and M1·.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus SWARAI\I GUJRAL . ...:.Respondent Through Mr.S.P.Mehta, Advocate WBTIHI + W.P.(C) 131/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... Petitioner • Througll ·Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, versus Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Sing h, ·Advocates BRAHAM SINGH PEON ..... Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate + W.P.(C) 265/2010 . . GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, T~ADE AND TAXES ..... Petitioner .: T.hrough Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, versus · Mrs.Latil<a Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates · VEENA ANAND ..... Respondent Through Mr.Ajay K.Sharma, Adv~cate WITIHI Jf\/.f'.(CJ 51!2010 & Connected matters Page 7 of 37 r ·I~ ---- - ----- ------- ----· ---------- + _ W.P.(C) 1084/2010 GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.THROUGH COMMISSIONER,TRADE & TAXES ..... Petitioner ANIL KUMAR Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Sirnran, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singll, Advocates versus ..... Respondent Tl1rough Mr.Abhay Kumar and Mr.Tenzing Tsering, Advocate \/\VBTft-11 + W.P.(C) 1172/2010 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.THROUGH . COMMISSIONER,TRADE & TAXES ..... Petitione1· Tl1rougl1 Mrs.Avnish Allalwat with Mrs.Sirnran, Mrs.Latika Choudl1ary and M1·.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus SMT.VIMLA SEHGAL ..... Respondent Through Mr.Arvind Nayar, Advocate WITH + W.P.(C) 1857/2010 GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI & OTHERS ..... Petitioner PHOOL SINGH Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Sirnran, · Mrs.Latika Cl1oudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus ..... Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate V\U~TIHI + 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 of37 )b .. ------------ . ------ -------------------- versus Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesll l<r.Singll, Advocates BRAHAM SINGH,LDC ..... Respondent Through Mr.S.P.Mehta, Advocate + W.P.(C) 3644/2010 GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .. ... Petitioner Througll Mrs.Avnish.Ailalwat witll Mrs.Simran, Mr"s.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh l<r.Singh, Advocates versus ASHWANI KUMAR! ..... Respondent Through Nemo WBT~-0 + W.P.(C) 4437/2010 GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Petitioner . RS JEPH · Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Siillran, Mrs.Latika .Ciloudhary and Mr·.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus ..... Respondent Through N~mo · WITH + W.P.(C) 3056/2010 GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HOME) ..... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Allalwat with Mrs.Simr·an, ·Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Adyocates versus W.P.(C) 51!2010 & Connected matters Page 9 of 37 I .1 RAJ KUMAR ..... Respondent Tl1rougl1 Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate + W.P.(C) 13806/2009 + GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HOME) ..... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus DIGAMBER SINGH ..... Respondent W.P.(C) 49/2010 Through MI-.G.D .Gupta,. Sr.Advocate with· Mr.S.I<.Sinha, Advocate WITII-0 GOVT OF NCT OF DEI<HI & ORS THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY .... .'Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocat~s versus KRISHAN KUMAR ..... Respondent Through Nemo ' vvrn-11 + W.P.(C) 50/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH PRII\ICIPAL SECRETARY(HOME) . . ..... Petitioner ThroLigh Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus Vll\100 I<ASHYAP ..... Respondent Tl1rough Mr.Sachin Cllauhan, Advocate W.P.(C) 51/2010 & Connected matters Page 10 of 37 f(J --------------------- + W.P.(C) 721/2007 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... ·Petitioner R.D. BOHET <CO~tAM: Til rough Mr.Rajesh· Kapoor with Mr.Nitesh, Singh, Advocates versus ..... Respondent Through Mr.A.I<.Behra, Mr.K.C.Baliasingh, Advocate U-UOINI'IBliE MIR •. jUSTHCIE I?IRADEIEI? NANDRAJO<G U-OOIN'!aliE MIR • .JillDST~CIE MOOl CHAND GARG 1. Wile tiler reporters- of Local papers may be Yes allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be ~~eferred· to the reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be repo1·ted in Yes tile Digest? .MQOIL CII-IAND GAIR.G, )J. * 1. We preface our decision by noting the argument' of learned counsel fo1~ the petitioners, being that so reprehensible is the conduct of the 1~espondents, who have been caugllt literally with their pants clown of accepting bribe that this Court ought to extend no- be[lefit to the respondents. It was u1~ged 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 petitioners urged that the responclents are not entitled to any hearing. The argument is emotional and is rejected at the outset for the reason a system gove·rned b)t the 1·u1e of law requires dispute resolution as per law. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners can be best repe_lled by noting a dialogue between Sir Tllomas rylor~ on the one side ancl his daughter Margret and his son-in-law Roper in tile . . play "A IVIan For All Seasons" by Robert Bolt. It refers to an incident Wilen Sir Tllomas More was urged by his daughter, Margaret, and his son-in- law, Roper, to an·est a man they regarded as evil. The dialogue is as undN:- W.P.(C) 51/2010 &, Connected matters Page 11 of 37 /9 Marga,·et: "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 ... I am not Gael. 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 wou(d not be appeased and he levelled the charge that JV/ore would give even the Devil the benefit of Jaw. IVIore: "Yes. What would .you do? Cut a great road through tile law to get after the Devil?" Roper:· ''I'd cut down every law in England to do that!" More: "Oh? .... Ancl when the last was clown, and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, tile laws from coast to coast - man's law, not Gael's- and if you ~ut them down -... D'you really think yoi.1 could stand upright in the winds that would blow tllen? ... Yes, ~·dl give 'll:ll'ue IDevi~ the benefit OJif ~aw, 1f0J1r my own safety's sake."' ) . 2. The very question which confronts us -in this matter is as to wheth~r tl1e reasoning of the respondents concluding. that it was not •reas{])l!l/ZJIJJOy practffcai!J8e' to hold an enquiry before dismissing the ,-esponclents from their services by invoking second proviso to sub clause (IJ) of Article 311(2) of tile Constitution of India in the prevailing circumstances at the relevant time was justified 01- not. 3. The circumstances in which enquiry can be dispensed with now stands explained in the guidelines forming part of Rule 19 ·of tl1e CCS(CCA) Rules after tile pronouncement of tile judgment in tile case of Union of India Vs. Tulsirarn Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398 by the .Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. W.P.(CI 51!2010 &, ConnecLed matters Page 12 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 9:30p.m. by T.V. news channei.'Aaj Tal<' wherein respondents posted 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 Ta)( Department were shown . . negotiating and accepting money from public for doing undue. favours, as a l<:neejerk 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 orcle1·s elated 27.09.2005 passed in the case of 1·espondents working in Tillar Jail and vide· orders dated 08.09.2006 passed in the case of employees working in. Trade and Ta)(. Department of the said State Government the petitioners dismissed their serv.ices without holding any domestic enquiry on tl1e. pretext tl1at the owners of the T.V. News Channel 'Aaj Tak' refused to associate themselves . with any enquiry/investigation as may be conducted in tl1e matter .. 6. These orders were challenged by the respondents by filing appeals and supplementary appeals before the Appellate Authol·ity which were dismissed with the only modification of conve1ting 'dismissal' to 'removal'. 7. Tl1~ respondents than approached the Central Ad.ministl·ative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi. A strange situation arose before the Tribunal, in as much as O.A. No.2884/2005, 200512005, 2897/2005, 2899/2005 and 2898/2005 were dismisseq vi9e order elated 13.04.2006; while a petiti.on filed by One R:D.Bohet being . O.A.No.778/2006 was .allowed by a coordinate bench of t~e Tribunal . ·vide order dated 24.11.2006 without referring the matter to·larger' l)ench. A writ. petition bearing No.721/2007 was.also filed before this Court against the order passed on 24.11.2006 which stands admitted ancl is now being taken for disposal with otl1er connected matters ~y l:l1is common orcle1·. W.P.(C) 51/2010 & Connecl'ed matters Paqe 13 of37 J) . 8. Tile Original Applications (O.As.) filed by the ,-espondents we1-e 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 clie in view of the pendency of W.P.(C) No. 721/2007. Later on, on an · application filed by the applicant in OA No. 2561/2006, larger Bench revived the mattel-s and. disposed all ·of them vide order da·ted 31.08.2009 wl1icl1 is the common order impugned before us and is sul)ject matter of the writ petitioils. V?rious questions were.framed. by tile full bench including the propriety of the late I- co-ordinate bench of the ·triiJLIIlal deciding the matter contrary to the earlier view _of the Tribunal witl1out refe1-ring the matter to a larger Bench. W.e are however concerned with the following question giving rise to the filing of tile petitions before us: i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the power conferred by clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution read with Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1985 can be justifiably invoked and the impugned orcler sustained. 9. The common ground taken by the respqndents in the _appeals filed before the Appellate Autllority as also before the Tribunal was, that the 1-eason given in the two orders dismissing the respondent." "that the News of Aaj Tak news channel declined in writing to all.ovv tl1eir reporters and journalists to join in any investigatio.n into the conduct of the applicant and consequently the case of tile clepal-tment become weak" for dispensing with the enquiry was contra1-y to Rule of Law not sufficient" fo"r reaching to the Conclusion that it was not pl-acticable to hold the enquiry. It is also. stated t.hat the decision was also in accordance with tile guidelines issued by the Government of India itself for invoking clause (b) of 2nd Proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. 10. The thl-ee conditions mentioned in sub-clause. (6) to Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA), relevant fo1- invoking of sub-clause (b) qf the second pmviso to Article 311(2) provides that; W.P,(CJ 51!2010 & Connected matters Page 14 of 37 (a) Where a civil servant, alone or together with his associates terrorizes, . thre·atens or intimidates witnesses who are likely to give evidence against him with fear or reprisal in ·order to prevent them from cloing so; or (b) Whe1·e the civil servant by himself or though others tllreatens, intimidates and terrorizes the officer wllo is tile disciplinary authority or members of his family so that the officer is afraid to hold the enquiry o1· direct it to be held; or (c) Where an atmosphere of violence or of general indiscipline and insubordination prevails at tile time . of the a~tempt to hole! the enquiry is made 11. The disciplinary authority is not expected to dispense with a disciplinary enquiry lightly or arbitrarily or out of ulterior l.llotives or merely in order to avoid the holding of an enquiry or because the ' Oepal·tment's case against the civil servant is weak and is, therefo1·e·, bound to fall. 12. Before tlie Appellate Authority, respondents submitted that"the Orders passed by tile disciplinary Authority in these cases clo not meet the afo1·esaicl test and thus the orders impugned in appeal we1·e liable to be set aside. Further the respondents denied the allegations such as acceptance of money, allegation of existence of compact disc sl1owing . alleged persecution and corresponding with persons or ,-elatives of persons and receiving money not owned by tile . . . res1)onclents, etc. They also questioned tile authenticity of the compact discs. It was also stated that in tile order it was not even alleged tl1at tile respondent in any manner tried to contact the n·ews channel or tried to influence or terrorize witnesses .. It was·~also suiJmitted that when regular departmental enquiry was ordered in case of similarly situated person i.e. one Dr.A.K.Bachawat there was no reason to discriminate with the ,-espondents. However the appeals we1·e dismissed vide common order dated 21.12.2005 · and 24.10.2007 except that the decision to dismiss was converted in 'Removal'. 13. It is thereafter tile respondents approached the Tribunal where . . also similar issues were raised. The Tribunal allowed the applications vide common order .elated 31.9.2009 holding that. the orders W.P.(C) 51!20.10 & Connectecl matters Page 15 of 37 .· clismissing tile_ respondents after concluding that it was not reasonably 1xacticable to hold a departmental enqui1-y in these cases were not sustainable in law. The petitioners aggrieved from the aforesaid circler filed tile aforesaicl writ petitions. 14. The order of dismissal passed in the case of Digambar Singh, an employee of Tillar jail, (CWP No.13806/2009) wllicll is ?imilar to all otl1er ca:;es of Tillar Jail Employees setting out the reason for adopti!lg the prQceclure as per tile proviso of Sub. clause 2 (b) of Al-ticle 311 o·f tile Constitution of India is reproduced for the sake of reference: "Office of the Director General (Prisons) Pl-isons Headquarters: Tillar: New Delhi F11( 65 9) :.CJ :Vig ilance:2005 :2187 OIR.DIEIR Dated 27 /9)05 WHEREAS onthe4th May, 2005 at about 9.30 PM, a. 'news item was telecast on tile AAj Tak news channel over Television with the caption, "Tillar jail bana Ghoos mahal'; AND . WHEREAS Shri Digambar Singh, Warder-599 posted at Central jail No.2,Tihar jail, New Delhi was shown accepting money in lieu of favours to be extended either to prisoners loc;lged in jails or to those intending to meet them· in contravention of the provisions of tile" Dellli Prisons Act, 2000 (Dellli Act 2 of 2002) and the rules made thereundel- reacl witll the Delhi jail Manual; AND WHEREAS the said Shri Digambar · Singh, Wardel--599 was placed under suspension vide this office order no. F-11(Misc.)/C.J/Vig./2005/998-1011 dated 4t 11 May, 2005 and furtl1er a case FIR No .. 25/2005 dated the 5t 11 May, 2005 was registered, amongst others, against the said Shri Digambar Singh, Warder-599 under Sections 7,12 and 13 of tile· Prevention of Corruption Act, (49 of 1988) with tile Police Station, Anti Corruption Banch, Old Secetariat: Delhi; AND WHEREAS the above misconduct on the part of the said Sh1-i Digambar Singh, Warder-599 is in violation of the following provisions of the Delhi Prisons Act 2000 (Delhi Act 2 of 2002) ancl the rules made thereunder read with the provisions of the Delhi jail Mana I, namely; "Section 9 of the Delhi Prisons Act, 2000 (Delhi Act 2 of 2002) Officers not to have business dealing with prisoners ancl otllers:- ,W.P.(C) 51/2010 & Connected matters Page 16 of 37 (1) No officer of a prison shall sell or let, nor shall any pe1·son in trust or employee! by l1im sell or let, or derive any benefit from selling or letting, any article to any prisoner o have any money or other business dealings,· directly o,- indirectly with any prisoner. · (2) No offic~r of. a prison shall accept any gift from a prisoner or a person having any dealings with prison acl ministration. Rule 145 of Delhi P1·isons (Inspection, Meetings and Duties of Officers) Rules 1988 (1) No subordinate officer shall, otherwise than with the special pem1ission of the Superintendent, at any time:- (a) Correspond or hold any intercourse of communication of any kincl whatever with ·any relative o,- friend of any prisoners: (IJ) hold any unauthorized communication of any ki1id .whatsoever with any p1·isoner: (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 qua1ters (2) No subordinate officer shall at any time:- ( a) hold any uncessary converse witl1 any prisoner: (b) treat any prisoner with familiarity; or (c ) discuss any matter ,-elating to the discipline or regulations of the jail with or within the 11earing of any prisoner: The conduct clearly establishes that the said Shri Digambar Singh, Warder-599 had expressed his ready willingness to extend undue facilities and conveniences in lieu of monetary consideration and this amounted to grave misconduct unbecoming of a govemment servant a·nd ·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 Digambar Singh, Warder-599 has also been established by a Committee of three jail officers cor')stituted by the Di1·ector-General (Prisons) vide ol·del- 1\lo. F. :n/Misc./CJ/Vig./2005/12/2 dated 26t 11 May, 2005. On W.P.(C} 51!20.10 & Connected matters Page 17 of 37 . . the 2nd June, 2005 vide Cornrnittee report diary No. 1643/SCJ(HQ) dated