* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI o/o Date of Reserve :28.07.2010 Date of Decision :06.08.2010 + 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 Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus AMAR SINGH PEON ..... 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, J. * For orders see W.P.(C) No.51/2010 AUGUST 06, 2010 PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J WP(C) 92!201 0 Page 1 of 1 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 * TIHIE HIIGH COURT Of Alr NIEW + W.P.( C) 51/2010 % Date of !Reserve :28.07.2 0110 Date of Decision :06.08.2 [))H1l 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.Nit es h Kr.Singh, Advocat es versus JAI BHAGWAN + W.P.(C) 58/2010 ..... Respo nd ent Tl1rough Nemo WBTIHI GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER , TRADE AND TAXES ..... Petition er Through Mrs.Avnish Ah alw at with Mr-s.Simran , Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.N ites h Kr.Singh, Advo ca tes versus SAN JAY DAWAR, STENOGRAPHER .. ... Respondent Through Mr. S.P.Mehta, Advocat e WITIH + W.P.( C) 67/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONE R, TRADE AND TAXES ..... Petition er Through Mrs .Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.S imran, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.l\lit esh Kr.Singh, Advo ca tes versu s D J GUPTA ..... Respondent Through Mr.Shyam Babu, Advocate + W.P.(C) 77/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER , TRADE AND TAXES .... . Petition er Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat witl1 Mrs .Sim ran, Mrs .Latika Chaudhary an d Mr.Nit es h W.P.(C! 51!2010 & Connected matters Page 1 of 37 g Kr.Singh, Advo cates 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.Simr an, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh l<r.Singh, Advocates versus A K JAIN ..... Respondent Through Mr.S.P.Mehta, Advocate V\HTIHI + W.P.(C) 81/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMM ISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... Petitioner Through Mrs .Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs .Simran, Mrs .Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus SO HAN LAL L.D.C ..... Respondent Through Mr-.Sachin Chauhan, Advo cate WITIHJ + 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, Advoc ate + 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 Through Mr·s.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simra n, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr-.Singh, Advocates versus SHASHI SINGH .... . Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advoc ate + 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 Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh l<r.Singh, Advocates KARAN SINGH YADAV ASTO ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Advo cate WITIH + 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 Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus SATWANT I<AUR ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Advo cate + 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 Mr.Nitesh l<r.Singh, Advocates versus AMAR SINGH PEON ..... Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advo cate W.P.(CJ 51/2010 & Conne cted matters Page 3 of 37 /0 WiTH + W.P.(C) 112/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE: AND TAXES .. ... Petitioner PRABHA JOSHI + W.P.(C) 113/2010 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 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... Petitioner versus Through Mrs.Avnish Al1alw at with Mrs.Sirnran, Mrs.Latika Choudl1ary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates MUSHTAQ AHMED, PEON ..... Respondent Througl1 Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate WITH + W.P.(C) 114/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalw at with Mrs.Sirnran, Mr·s.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocat es versus YAD RAM YADAV .. ... Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chau han , Advocate WITH + W.P.(C) 115/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHf THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mr·s.Simran, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh W.P.(CJ 51!20 10 & Conne cted matter s Page 4 of 3 7 J I Kr.Singh, Advocat es versus KIRAN VERMA PEON ..... Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate WITIHI + W.P.(C) 116/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES .. ... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Sirn ra n, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nit esh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus RANJIT CHOUDHARY, STENO ..... Respondent Through Mr-.S.P.Mehta, Advocate WITIH + W.P.(C) 117/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE: AND TAXES ..... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Sirnran , Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Ni tes h Kr.Singh, Advocates versus SHAMSHER SINGH UDC ..... Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocat e + W.P.( C) 118/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHJ THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Sirn ra n, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus RAM BHAJAN, PEON ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Advoc ate WITH + W.P.(C) 119/2010 W.P.(C) 51!20 10 & Conne cted matt·ers Page 5 of 37 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Al1alwat with Mrs.Simr an, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary 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 Chaudhary and Mr.Nit esh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus C P YADAV PEON ..... Respondent Tl1rough Nemo WiTIHI + 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 Chaudhary and Mr-.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus AJAY KUMAR STENOGRAPHER Through Nemo ..... Respondent WITIH + 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.Nit esh Kr.S ingh, Advocates versus W.P.(C} 5112010 & Connected matters Page 6 of 37 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 Througll Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advo cates 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.Nit esh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus BRAHAM SINGH PEON ..... Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advo cate WiTH + W.P.(C) 265/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMM ISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES .. ... Petition er Through Mrs .Avnish Ah alwat with Mrs.Simran, versus · Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocat es VEENA ANAND ..... Respondent Through Mr.Ajay K.Sharma, Advocat e W.P.CC) 51!2010 & Connected matters Page 7 of 37 + W.P.(C) 1084/2010 GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.THROUGH COMMISSIONER,TRADE & TAXES ..... Petitioner ANIL KUMAR Through Mrs .Avnish Al1alwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus ..... Respondent Through Mr.Abhay Kumar and Mr.Tenzing Tsering, Advocate + W.P.(C) 1172/2010 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.THROUGH COMJVIISSIONER,TRADE & TAXES ..... Petitione1 · Throug ·h Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus SMT.VIMLA SEHGAL .... . Respondent Through Mr.Arvind Nayar, Advocate WiTH + W.P.(C) 185 7/2010 GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI & OTHERS ... .. Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and MI-.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates PHOOL SINGH versus ..... Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate WDTIHI + W.P.(C) 1858/2010 GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .. ... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.S.imran, ' W.P.(C) 51 /2 010 & Conne cted matters Pag e 8 of 37 versus Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nite sh Kr.Singh, Advocates BRAHAM SINGH,LDC ..... Respondent Through Mr.S.P.Mehta, Advocate WITH + W.P.(C) 3644/2010 GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. . .... PetitiGner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalw at with Mrs.Sirnran, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nit es h Kr.Singh, Advoc ates versus ASHWANI KUMARI ..... Respondent Through Nerno WITD-11 + W.P.(C) 4437/2010 GNCT OF DELHI AND 08.5 ..... Petition er RSJEPH Through Mrs .Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Sirn ra n, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mi-.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus ..... Respondent Through Nerno WITIH + W.P.(C) 3056/2010 GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HOME) ..... Petition er Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs .Sirnran, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nit esh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus W.P.(CJ 51!2010 & Conne cted matters Page 9 of 37 )0 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.Avnish Ahalw at with Mrs.Sirnran, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus DIGAMBER SINGH ..... Respondent + W.P.(C) 49/2010 Through Mr.G.D.Gupta, Sr.Advocate with Mr.S.K.Sinha, Advocate WITIH GOVT OF NCT OF DEKHI & ORS THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ..... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Sirnran, Mrs .Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus KRISHAN KUMAR ..... Respondent Through Nerno W!TH + W.P.(C) 50/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY(HOME) ..... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mr-s.Sim ran, Mrs.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus VINOD KASHYAP .... . Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advoc ate W.P.(CJ 51!2010 & Connected matters Page 10 of 37 Jr WITH + W.P.(C) 721/2007 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Petition e,- R.D. BOHET CORAM: Through Mr.Rajesh Kapoor with Mr.Nitesh, Singh, Advocates versus . . .... Resp ondent Through Mr.A.K.Behra, Mr.I<.C.Balia singh, Advocate IHJON'IBliE MIR. JUSTICE IPRADEEP NANDRAjOG IHJON'IBLE MIR. jUSTICE MOOl CHAND GARG 1 . Wh ether reporters of Local papers may be Yes allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter 01- not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Yes the Digest? MOOl CHAIND GARG, j. * 1. We preface our decision by noting the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners, being that so reprehensible is the con duct of the respondents, who have been caught literally with their pants down of accepting bribe that this Court ought to extend no benefit to the respon dents. It was urged that law has to be interpreted, in th e instant cas e, keeping in view the grave misdemeanour of th e ,-espondents . In other words, the counsel for th e petitioners urged that the respondents are not entitled to any hearing. The argum ent is emotional and is rejected at the outset for the reason a syst em governed by the rule of law requires dispute resolution as per law. Th e submission made by learned counsel for the petition ers can be best repelled by noting a dialogue between Sir Tllomas More on the one side and his daughter Margret and his son -in-law Roper in t he 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.(C} 51!2010 & Connected matter s Page 11 of 37 Margaret: "Father, that man's bad." More: "There is no law against that." Roper: "Ther -e is! God's law!" More: "Then God can arrest him. I know what's lega l, 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, tl1e laws from coast to coast - man's law, not God's- and if you cut them down -... D'you really think you cou ld stand upright in the winds that would blow then? ... Yes, give 'lthe IDevii the benefit o1f 1for my own safety's sake." 2. The very quest ion which confronts us -in this matter is as to whether the reasoning of the respondents concluding that it was not 'reasonabDy practicable' to hold an enquiry before dismissing the respondents from their services by invoking second proviso to sub clause (b) of Arti cle 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 Court of India. W.P.(C) 51!20 10 & Conne cted matters Page 12 of 37 4. In the aforesaid matters petitioners after telecast of news item capt ioned Programme 'Vishesh' with caption 'G hoos Mahal ' on 08 .03 .2005 at about 9:30p.m. by T.V. news channel 'Aaj Tak' wherein respondents posted in Tihar jail were shown accepting money from the persons lodg ed in jail and from those coming to meet them; respondents posted in Trade and Tax Department were shown negot iating and accept ing money from public for doing undu e favours, as a kneejerk reaction suspended all the respondents. The petitioners also lodged an FIR aga inst all the respondents under Sections 7, 12, and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act on 09 .03.2005 itself. 5. Later on, vid e 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 in Trade and Tax Department of the said State Government the petitioners dismissed their services without holding any domestic enqu iry on the pretext that the owners of the T.V. News Channel 'Aaj Tak' refused to associate themselves with any enqu iry/inv estigation as may be conducted in the 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 converting 'dismissal' to 'removal'. 7. The respondents than approached the Central Administrative Tl"ibunal Principal Bench New Delhi. A strange situat ion 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 ol-der 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 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 8. The Original Applications (O.As.) filed by the respondents were referred how ever- 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 tile 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 tile 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-ord inate bench of tile tribunal deciding the matter contrary to the ear lier view of the Tr-ibunal without referring the matter to a larger Bench. We are however concerned with the fol lowin g question giving rise to th e 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 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 re5.pondent " "that the News of Aaj Tak news channel declined in writing to allow their reporters and journalists to join in any investigation into th e conduct of the app licant 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 nd Provi so to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. 10. The three cond iti ons mentioned in sub-clause (6) to Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA), relevant for invoking of sub-clause (b) of the second pr-oviso to Article 311(2) provides that; W.P.(C) 51!2010 & Connected matters Page 14 of 37 Jl (a) Where a civil servant, alone or together with his associates terrorizes, threatens or intimidat es 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 indis cipline and insubordination prevails at the time of the attempt to hold the enquiry is made 1L The disciplinary author-ity 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, ther efore, 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 tile orders impugned in appeal wer-e liable to be set aside. Further the respondents denied the allegations such as acceptance of money, allegation of existence of compact disc show ing 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 wa s not even alleged that tile respondent in any manner tried to contact the news channe l or tr·ied to influence or terrorize witnesses. It was also subm itte d 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 ther-eafter the respondents approached the Tribunal where also simil ar issues wer·e raised. The Tribunal allowed the applications vide common order dated 31.9.2009 holding that the or-ders W.P.(CJ 51!2010 & Connected matters Page 15 of 37 dismissing the_ respondents after concluding that it wa s not reasonably practicable to hold a departmental enquiry in these cases were not sustainable in law. The petitioners aggrieved from th e aforesaid order fi led the aforesaid writ petitions . 14. The Ol'der 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 sett ing out the reason for adoptirlg the procedure as per the proviso of Sub clause 2 (b) of Al-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( 65 9) :CJ :Vig ila nce:2 005:2187 ORDER Dated 27/9 /05 WHEREAS onthe4th May, 2005 at about 9.30 PM, a news item was telecast on the AAj Tak news channel ov er Television with the caption, "Tillar Jail bana Ghoos m ahal'; AND WHEREAS Shri Digambar Singh, Ward er-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 (De lhi Act 2 of 2002) and the rules made thereunde r read with the Delhi jail Manual; AND WHEREAS the said Shri Digambar Singh , Ward er-599 was placed under suspension vide thi s offic e order no . F-11(Misc.)/CJ/Vig./2005/998 -1011 dated 4t,, May , 2005 and further a case FIR No. 25/2005 dated the 5 th 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 Con·uption Banch, Old Seceta1·iat: Delhi; AND WHEREAS tile 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 Mana I, namely; "Section 9 of the Delhi Prisons Act, 2000 (Delhi Act 2 of 2002) Officer -s not to have business dealing with pr-ison el-s and oth ers:- W.P.(CJ 51!20 10 & Conn ected matte rs Pag e 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 artic le to any prisoner o have any money or other business dealings, · directly or indire ct ly 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 (Insp ectio n, Meetings and Duties of Officers) Rules 1988 (1) No subordinate officer shall, otherwise than with the spec ial permission of the Superintendent, at any time: - (a) Correspond or hold any intercourse of commun ication of any kind whatever - witll 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 whatev er with any discharged prisoner; or (d) permit any discllarge prisoner or any re lative 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 disc ipl ine