* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Reserve :28.07.2010 Date of Decision :06.08.2010 + W.P.(C) 3056/2010 GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HOME) ..... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus RAJ KUMAR Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, 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 OL C GA A —-Tt 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 * IN THE HIGH COIIJR.T OF DIElHl~ AT NfEW DEliHI~ + W.P.(C) 51/20.10 % Date of !Reserve 0 :28.07.2010 Date of Decision :06.08.2010 0 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 JAI BHAGWAN + W.P.(C) 58/2010 · ..... Respondent . Through Nemo WIT HI GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudh9ry and MroNitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus SANJAY DAWAR, STENOGRAPHER .. 0 .. Respondent Through Mr. SOP.Mehta, Advocate WITH + W.P.(C) ~7/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... Petitioner . Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simrari, Mrs.Latikq Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus D J GUPTA ..... Respondent Through M_r.Shyam Babu, Advocate WITH + W.P.(C) 77/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES 0 .... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.~atika Chaudhary and MroNitesh . WoPO(C/ 5112010 & Conn~cted matters Page 1 of 37 . ' ,o• , .. Kr.Singh, Advocates versus GEETA MALHOTRA ..... Respondent Through Mr.S.P.I:'Iehta, Advocate WITH +- 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 Chaudhary and·Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates· versus A KJAIN ..... Respondent Through Mr.S.P.Mehta, Advocate . WIT HI + W.P.(C) 81/2010 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 . SOHAN LAL L.D.C . .. ... Respondent . Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate . WITIH + W.P.(C) 83/2010 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 RAJESH SINGH STENO ..... Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate. ' . W~TH + W.P.(C) 87/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... Petitioner W.P.(C) 5112010 & Connected matters Page 2 of 37 Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Sirnran, Mrs.Latika· Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus SHASHI SINGH ..... Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate WITH + W.P.(C) 88/2010 + r . GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Sirnran, ·Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus KARAN SINGH YADAV ASTO ..... Respondent . Through Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Advocate ·. WITH W.P.(C) 90/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER; TRADE AND TAXES ..... Petitioner SATWANT KAUR Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Sirnran, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Advocate WITH + W.P.(C) 92/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Sirnran, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus AMAR SINGH PEON ..... Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate W.PJCJ 5112010 & Connected matters Paqe 3 of 37 /0 WITH + W.P.(C) 112/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE: AND TAXES ..... Petitioner PRABHA JOSHI Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Sirnran, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and. Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus ..... Respondent Through Mr.S.P.Mehta, Advocate WITH + 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 Cl1oudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates MUSHTAQ AHMED, PEON ..... Respondent Througll Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate WITH + W.P.(C) 114/2010 ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Sirnran,. versus Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and M_r.Nitesh Kr.Singll, Advocates YAD RAM YADAV ..... Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate WITIHI + 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.Nitesh W.P.(C} 51!2010 &, Connected matters Page 4 of37 I J I v versus l<r.Singh, Advocates I<IRAN VERMA PEON . .. ... Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate . WITH + W.P.(C) 116/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES · ..... Petitioner · Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Slmran, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus RANJIT CHOUDHARY, STENO ..... Respondent Through Mr.S.P.Mehta, Advocate .. W~TIHI + 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 l<r.Singh, Advocate's · versus SHAMSHER SINGH UDC ..... Respondent . Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate WITH + W.P.(C) 118/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHJ THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus RAM BHAJAN, PEON ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sac:;hin Chauhan, Advocate , WITH + W.P.(C) 119/2010 W.P.(C) 5112010 c;, Connected matters Page 5 of37 ,"\ ... GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... Petitioner . Through Mrs.Avn_ish Ah.alwat with Mrs.5imran, · Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus GANPAT SINGH ..... Respondent Through Mr.S.P. Mehta, Advocate. WITH 'I + . W:P.(C) 123/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIO,NER, TRADE AND TAXES · ..... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates · versus · C P YADAV PEON ..... Respondent Through Nemo WITH + W.P.(C) 124/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnisll Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus AjAY KUMAR STENOGRAPHER Through Nemo· ..... Respondent WITH + W.P.(C) 129/2010 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 W.P.CCI 51/2010 & Connected matters Page 6 of 37 .. J<. SHRICHAND ..... Respondent Through Mr. S.P. Mehta, Advocate . WITH + .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 Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates · · versus SWARAN GUJRAL ... :. Respondent Through Mr.S. P. Mehta, Advocate WITH + W.P.(C) 131/2010 . . . . 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 BRAHAM SINGH PEON ..... Respondent . Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate WITH + W.P.(C) 265/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ...... Petitioner · T.hrough Mrs.Avnish Aha.lwat with Mrs.Simran, · Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus . VEENA ANAND ..... Respondent Through Mr.Ajay K.Sharma, Advocate WITH W.P.(CJ 51!2010 & Connected matters Page 7 of 37 10 .. ; + 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.Singh, Advocates versus ..... Respondent Through Mr.Abhay Kumar and Mr.Tenzing Tsering, Advocate WITH W.P.(C) 1172/2010 ' -~ GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.THROUGH COMMISSIONER,TRADE & TAXES ..... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Sil}1ran, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh · Kr.Singh, Advocates versus SMT.VIMLA SEH.GAL · ..... 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 Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates. versus I ' ..... Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate WITH + W.P.(C) 1858/2010 GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .. ... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Sirn1·an, W.P.(C) 5112010 & Connected matters Page 8 of37 Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesll Kr.Singh, Advocates ' versus BRAHAM SINGH,LDC ..... Respondent · Through Mr.S.P.Mehta, Advocate WITH + W.P.(C) 3644/2010 GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .. ... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish.Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and ·Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates · versus ASHWANI KUMARI ..... Respondent Through Nemo WITH + W.P.(C) 4437/2010 GNCT OF DELHI AND OBS ..... Petitioner RSJEPH Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Sim1·an, Mrs.Latika Cl1oudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus ..... Respondent Through Nemo WITH \ ... + W.P.(C) 3056/2010 GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HOME) ..... Petitioner · Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates · versus W.P.(CJ 51/2010 & Connected matters Page 9 of37 J{, ,. + RAJ KUMAR . .... Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate W.P.(C) 13806/2009 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (~OME) . . .... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates · · versus DIGAMBER SINGH ..... Respondent Through Mr.G.D.Gupta, Sr.Advocate with· Mr.S.K.Sinha, Advocate ' WITH + W.P.(C) 49/2019 GO\ff OF NCT OF DEKHI & ORS THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ..... Petitioner Throu.gh Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Sfmran, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus KRISHAN KUI\IIAR ..... Respondent Through Nemo WITH + W.P.(C) 50/2010 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, Advocate? versus VINOD KASHYAP . .. ... Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate W.P.CCJ 51!2010 & Connected matter-s Page 10 of 37 11- . ) WITH + W.P.(C) 721/2007 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Rajesh Kapoor with Mr.Nitesh, Singh, Advocates versus R.D. BOHET ..... Respondent Through Mr.A.K.Behra, Mr.K.C.Baliasingh, Advocate CORAM: HON'IBLE MR. JU~TICE PRADEIEIP NANDRAJOG HON'IBLIE MR. JUST~CE 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 reporte·d in the Digest? MOOL CIHAND GARG, j. * Yes Yes ·Yes 1. We preface our decision by noting the argument pf learned counsel for the petitioners, being that so repreh.ensible is the conduct of the respondents, who have been caught literally with their pants down of accepting bribe that this Court ougl1t i:o extend no benefit to 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 petitioners urged that the respondents are not entitled to.any hearing. The argument is emotional and is rejected at the outset for the reason .a system governed b~/ the rule of law requires dispute resolution as per law. The submission made by lea~ned counsel for the petitioners can be best repelled by noting a dialogue between Sir Thomas More. on the one sfde 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 Sir Thomas More was urged by his daughter, Margaret, and his son-in- law, Roper, to arrest a man they regarded as evil. The dialogue is as under:- W.P.CC) 51/2010 & Connected matters Page 11 of 37 Margaret: ,"Father, that man's bad." More: "There is no law against tl1c;:~t." Roper: "There is! God's law!" More: "Then God can arrest him. I know what's legal, not what's ri~ht. And I'll stick to what's legal ... I am 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 char~e··that More would give even the Devil the benefit of law. 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 England to 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, D'd give the Devin the benefit o1f law, for my own safety's sake." 2. The very question which confronts us ·in this matter is as to whethe'r the reasoning of the respondents concluding that it was not ~reasonably practicable' to hold an enquiry before dismissing the respondents from their services by i.nvoking second proviso to sub clause (b) 'of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of. India in the prevailing· circumstances at the relevant time was justified or 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 Co""urt of India. W.P.(C/ 51!2010 & Connected matters Page 12 of 37 19 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 channei-'Aaj Tak' wherein respondents posted in Tillar jail were shown accepting money from the persons lodged in jail and from those coming ·to rneet 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 Att on 09.03.2005 itself. 5. Later on, vide separate orders dated 27.09.2005 passed in the case of respondents working in Tillar: jail and vide orders dated 08.09.2006 passed in the case of employees working iri Trade and Tax Department of the said State Government the petitioners dismissed their services without holding any domestic enquiry on tile pretext that the owners of the T.V. News Channel 'Aaj Tak' 'ref~sed to associate themselves with any enquiry/investigation as may be conducted in the matter. 6. These orders were challenged by the respondents by filing appeals and supplementary appeals before the Appellate Authority which were dismissed with the only modification of conyerting 'dismissal' to 'removal'. 7. The responde·nts than approached the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi. A strange situation arose 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.778/2006 was allowed by a coordinate bench ofthe Tribunal vide ·order dated 24.11.2006 without referring the matter to larger bench. A writ petition bearing No.721/2007 was also filed before this Court against the order passed on 24.11.2006 ,which stancls admitted and is now being taken for disposal with other connected matters by this common order. W.P.(CJ 51/2010 & Connected matters Page 13 of37 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 application filed by the applicant in 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 subject matter of the writ petitions. Various questions were framed by . . . the full bench in.cluding the propriety of the later co-ordinate bench of the tribunal deciding the matter contrary to the earlier view ·_of :the Tribunal without referring the matter to a larger Bench. W.e are j however concerned with the following question giving rise to the filing of the 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 ~ervices (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1985 can be justifiably invoked and the impugned order sustained . . 9. The common ground taken by the respondents in the appeals filed before the Appellate AuthSJrity as also before the T~ibunal was, that the reason given in the two orders dismissing the respondent " "th':lt the News of Aaj Tal< news channel declined in writing to allow their reporters and journalists to· 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 contrary to Rule of Law not sufficient for reaching to the. Conclusion that it was not practicable to 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. 2nd Proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. 10. The tl1ree conditions mentioned in sub-clause (6) to Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA}, relevant for invoking of sub-clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 3l1(2) provides that; W.PJCI 51!2010 & Connected matters Page 14 of 37 c2) (a) (b) (c) Where a civil servant, alone or together with l1is associates terrorizes, threatens or intimidates witnesses who are likely to give evidence against him with fear or reprisal in ord~r to prevent them from doing so; or Where the civil servant by himself or though others threatens, intimidates and terrorizes the officer who is the disciplinary authority or members of his family so thi3t the officer is afraid to hold the enquiry or direct it to be held; or Where an atmosphere of violence or of ,general indis.cipline and insubordination prevails at the time of the attempt to hold the enquiry is made 11. The disciplinary authority is not expected to dispense with a disciplinary enquiry lightly 01- arbitrarily or out of ulterior motives.or merely in order to avoid the holding of an enquiry or because the Department's case against the civil servant is weak and is, therefs>re, bound to fall. 12. Before the Appellate Authority, respondents submitted that the· Orders passed by the· discipli~ary Authority in these cases clo not meet the afor~said test and thus the orders impugned in appeal were liable to be set aside. Further the respondents denied the a llegat.!ons such as acceptance of money, allegation of existence of compact disc· showing alleged persecution and corresponding with persons or ·- relatives of person·s and receiving money not owned b·y the· respondents, etc. They also questioned the authenticity of the compact discs. It was also stated tl1at in the order it was not even alleged that the respondent in any manner tried to coi1tact the n·ews channel or tried to influence or terrorize witnesses. It was also submitted 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 respondents. However the appeals were 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 the respondents approached .the Tribunal where . ~ also similar issues were raised. The Tribunal allowed the·"~pplicatfons . .,~ vide common order .dated 31.9.2009 holding that the orders W.P.(C) 51/2010 & Connected matters .Page 15 of 37 dismissing th~ respondents after concluding that it I was not reasonably practicable to hold a dep9rtmental enquiry in these cases were not sustainable in law. The petitioners aggrieved from the aforesaid order filed tl1e aforesaid writ petitions. 14. The order of dismissal passed in the case of Digambar Singh, an employee of Tihar jail, (CWP No.13806/2009) wl1ich is similar to all other cases of Tihar Jail Employees setting out the reason for adopting the procedure as per the proviso of Sub clause 2 (b) of A1~ticle 311 of the Constitution of India is reproduced for the sake of reference: "Office of the Director General (Prisons) Prisons Headquarters: Tihar: New Delhi F11(659) :_CJ :Vigila nce:2005 :2187 ORDER Dated 27/9/05 \fVHEREAS onthe4th May, 2005 at about 9.30 PM, a news item was telecast on tile A(\j Tak news channel over Television with the caption, "Tihar 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 lodged in jails or to those intending to meet them in contravention of the provisions of the Delhi Prisons Act,'· 2000 (Delhi Act 2 of 2002) and the rules made thereunder read with tl1e Delhi jail Manual; > • AND WHEREAS the· said Shri Digambar Singh, j Warder-599 was_ placed under suspension vide this office ' order no. F-11(Misc.)/CJ/Vig./2005/998-1011 dated 4t 11 May, 2005 and further 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 tl1e Prevention of Corruption Act, (49 of 1988) with tl1e Police Station, Anti Corruption Banch, 91d Secetariat: Delhj; .. AND WHEREAS the above misconduct on the part of· the said Shri Digambar Singh, Warder-599 is in violation of the following provisions of the Delhi Prisons Act 200_0 (Delhi Act 2 of 2002) and the rules made 'thereunder read with the proyisions of the Delhi jail Mana!, 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.(C) 51/2010 & Connected matters Page 16 of 37 'I (1) No officer of a prison shall sell or let, nor shall any person in trust or employed by him sell or let, or derive any b~nefit from selling or letting, any article to any prisol}er 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. Rule 145 of Delhi Prisons (Inspection, Meetings and Duties of Officers) Rules 1988 (1) No subordinate officer shall, otherwise than with the special permission of the Superintendent, at'any time:- " (a) Correspor)d or hold any intercourse of communication of any kind whatever with any relative or friend of any prisoners: (b) hold any unauthorized communication of 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 rem a in at his quarters (2) No subordinate officer shall at any time:- (a) hold any uncessary converse with 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 willingness to extend undue facilities and conveniences in 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 Digambar Singh, Warder-599 has also been established by a Committee of three jail officers constituted by the Director-General (Prisons) vide order . No.F .1·1/Misc./CJ/Vig./2005/12/2 dated 26th May, 2005. Or W.P.CC) 51!2010 & Connected matters Page 17 of 37 ~· the 2nd June, 2005 vide Committee report diary No. 1643/SCJ(HQ) dated 2nd