* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Reserve :28.07.2010 Date of Decision ;06.08.2010 + 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 Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus DIGAMBER SINGH Respondent Through Mr.G.D.Gupta, Sr.Advocate with Mr.S.K.Sinha, 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. ]. * For orders see W.P.(C) No.51/2010 f<V 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 h * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT MEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 51/2010 % Date of Reserve :28J - 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 Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus JAI BHAGWAN Respondent Through Nemo WITH + W.P.(C) 58/2010 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 SANJAY DAWAR, STENOGRAPHER Respondent Through Mr. S.P.Mehta, Advocate WITH + 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 Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus DJ GUPTA Respondent Through Mr.Shyam Babu, Advocate WITH + W.P.(C) 77/2010 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 W.p.ca 51/2010 & Connected matters • Page 1 of 37 k Kr.Singh, Advocates versus GEETA MALHOTRA Respondent Through Mr.S.P.Mehta, 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 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.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus SOHAN LAL L.D.C Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate WITH + 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 Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus RAJESH SINGH STENO Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate "t. WITH + W.P.(C) 87/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner W.P.(C) 51/2010 & Connected matters Page 2 of 37 \ 10 is 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 WITH + 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 Choudhary 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 Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus . SATWANT KAUR 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.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh : Kr.Singh, Advocates versus AMAR SINGH PEON Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate W.P.(C) 51/2010 & Connected matters Page 3 of 37 // k WITH + W.P.(C) 112/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES . Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwatwith Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus PRABHAJOSHI Respondent Through Mr.S.P.Mehta, Advocate WITH + W.P.(C) 113/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh 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.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs^Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus YAD RAM YADAV Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate WITH + W.P.(C) 115/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, ^ TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwatwith Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh • W.P.(C) 51/2010 & Connected matters Page 4 of 37 IL Kf.Singh, Advocates versus KIRAN 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.Siinran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus RANJIT CHOUDHARY, STENO Respondent Through Mr.S.P.Mehta, Advocate WITH + W.P.(C) 117/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Sinnran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus SHAMSHER SINGH UDC Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate WITH + 'W.P.(C) 118/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus RAM BHAJAN, PEON ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Advocate WITH • + W.P.(C) 119/2010. W.P.(C) 51/2010 & Connected matters Page 5 of 37 n GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.Avn.ish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus GANPAT SINGH Respondent Through Mr.S.P. Mehta, Advocate WITH + W.P.(C) 123/2010 • GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, . Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus CP YADAV PEON Respondent Through Nemo WITH + W.P.(C) 124/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh U Kr.Singh, Advocates versus AJAY KUMAR STENOGRAPHER Respondent Through Nemo 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 Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus •^N.PAC) 51/2010 & Connected matters Page 6 of 37 !>r /, SHRI CHAND ' 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 Choudhary 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 Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus I 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 Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus VEENAANAND Respondent Through Mr.Ajay K.Sharma, Advocate WITH \N.P.(0 51/2010 & Connected matters Paae 7 of 37 K + W.P.(a 1084/2010 GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.THROUGH COMMISSIONER,TRADE & TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwatwith Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus ANIL KUMAR 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.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.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 Through M.rs.AvnishAhalwatwith Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus PHOOL SINGH 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.Simran, \N.P.(C) 51/2010 & Connected matters Page 8 of 37 Mrs.Latika Cho.udhary and Mr.Nitesh ^ Kr.Singh, Advocates versus I 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 jvirs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus ASHWANI KUMAR! Respondent Through Nemo 1 WITH + W.P.(C) 4437/2010 GNCTOF DELHI AND ORS Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus RSJEPH ..... 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 Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus W.P.(C) 51/2010 & Connected matters Paae 9 of 37 # RAJ KUMAR Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate + W.P.(C) 13806/2009 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HOME) Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnlsh Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary 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) 49/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DEKHI & ORS THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnlsh Ahalwat with Mrs.Simrain, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus - KRISHAN KUMAR Respondent Through Nemo WITH + W.P.(C) 50/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY(HOME) Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnlsh Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus VINOD KASHYAP Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate W.PJO 51/2010 & Connected matters Page 10 of 37 WITH + W.P.(C) 72172007 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS Petitioner Through Mr.Rajesh Kapoor with Mr.Nitesh, Singh, Advocates versus R.D. BOHET Respondent Through (vir.A.K.Behra, |V|r.K.C.Baliasingh, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND 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. Whether the judgment should be reported in Yes the Digest? MOOL CHAND GARG, I!. * 1. We preface our decision by noting the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners, being that so reprehensible is the conduct of the respondents, who have been caught literajly with their pants down of accepting bribe that this Court ought to 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 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 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.rc; 51/2010 & Connected matters Page 11 of 37 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 ... 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 charge 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, I'd give the Devil the benefit of law, for my own 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 'reasonably practicable' to hold an enquiry before dismissing the respondents from their services by invoking 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 \/s. Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. W.P.fC) 51/2010 & Connected matters Paae 12 of 37 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 respondents posted in Tihar Jail were shown ajccepting 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 resfDondents. 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 dismissed their services without holding any domestic enquiry on the pretext that the owners of the T.V. News Channel 'Aaj Tak' refused 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 converting • 'dismissal' to 'removal'. 7. The respondents 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 of the Tribunal vide order dated 24.11^2006 without referring the matter to l.arger bench. A writ petition bearing No.721/2007 was 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 Page 13 of 37 c?) 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 including 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. We are 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 Services (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 Authority as also before the Tribunal was, that the reason given in the two orders dismissing the respondent " "that the News of Aaj Tak 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 2"^ Proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. , 10. The three 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 311(2) provides that; W.P.(C) 51/2010 & Connected matters Page 14 of 37 (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 disciplinary authority 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 indiscipline 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 or 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, therefore, bound to fall. 12. Before the Appellate Authority, respondents submitted that the Orders passed by the disciplinary Authority in these cases do not meet the aforesaid test and thus the orders impugned in appeal were liable to be set aside. Further the respondents denied the allegations such as acceptance of money, allegation of existence of compact disc 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 compact discs. It was also stated that in the order it was not even alleged that the respondent in any manner tried to contact the news 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 applications vide common order dated 31.9.2009 holding that the orders W.P'.fO 51/2010 & Connected matters Page 15 of 37 dismissing tine 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 of Tihar Jail Employees setting out the reason for adopting the procedure as 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 27/9/05 ORDER WHEREAS onthe4th May, 2005 at about 9.30 PM, a news item was telecast on the AAj Tak news channel over Television with the caption, "Tiharjail 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 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.)/CJA/ig./2005/998-1011 dated 4'^ May, 2005 and further a case FIR No. 25/2005 dated the 5^^ May, 2005 was registered, amongst others, against the said Shri Digambar Singh, Warder-599 under Sections 7,12 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, (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 Digambar Singh, Warder-599 is in violation of the following provisions of the Delhi Prisons Act 2000 (Delhi Act 2 of 2002) and the rules made thereunder read with the provisions of the Delhi Jail 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.(C) 51/2010 & Connected matters Paae 16 of 37 (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 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. 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) Correspond 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 remain 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.ll/Misc./CJ/Vig./2005/12/2 dated 26'^ May, 2005. On W.P.(C) 51/2010 & Connected matters Page 17 of 37 i the June, 2005 vide Comnnittee report diary No. > 1643/SCJ(HQ) dated 2'^^ June, 2005; AND WHEREAS the videotajDe 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 Delhi Jail Manual; AND WHEREAS it is dear that the said Shri Digambar Singh, Warder-599 was not receiving money genuinely owed by him and the overwhelming presumption that 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) payment of his salary, (b) his receiving loans, (c) his receiving back loans/other money 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 journalists to join in any investigation into the conduct of the said