A O IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Reserve :28.07.2010 Date of Decision :06.08.2010 + W.P.(C) 87/2010 GOVT OF NOT 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 SHASHI SINGH Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate CORAM: Q 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 ARG MOOL CH AUGUST 06, 2010 PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J WP(C) 87/2010 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 =i-- . DIM THE HIGH COUD^T OF,DELHI AT HEW DELHI + W P.(C) 51/20.10 % GOVT OF NOT 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 , W P.iC) 58/2010 GOVT OF NOT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, . TRADE AND TAXES c 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 W P.fC) 67/2010 GOVT OF NOT 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 + w P.fC^ 77/2010 ' , GOVT OF NOT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, • TRADE AMD TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh 1/1/ P./C.i 5]Omo & CnnnecLed matters Paoe 1 of 37 o Kr.Singh, Advocates vers us GEETA MALHOTRA Respondent Through Mr.S.P.Mehta, Advocate + W.P.fO 78/2010 GOVT OF NOT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES - Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalvyat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latlka Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates' versus A K JAIN Respondent Through Mlr.S.P.MIehta, Advocate w P.(C) 81/2010 GOVT OF NOT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, n TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh n Kr.Singh, Advocates n versus " SOHAN LAL L.D.C Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate WBTH W.P.fC) 83/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AMD TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates vers us RAJESFI SINGH STENO Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate + \M.P.(C) 87/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner W.PJO 51/2n in connected matters Paqe 2 of 3.7 o 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 -I- W.P.CC) 88/2010 GOVT OF NOT 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 n WITH + W.P.fC) 90/2010' GOVT OF NOT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ' Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mlrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus SATWANT KAUR Respondent Through Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Advocate m'/iTH + W.P.(C) 92/2010 GOVT OF NOT 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 n , Page 3 of 37 W P fO 112/2010 . GOVT OF NOT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika ChoLidhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus PRABHAJOSHI Respondent Through Mr.S.P.Mehta, Advocate VA/ P.(0 113/2010 GOVT OF NOT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ' Petitioner n Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus n n MUSHTAQ AHMED, PEON Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate n + W P.fC) 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 + W PRC) 115/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES .....Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh W.P.(C) 51/?mn & Connected matters Paqe 4 of 37 Kr.Singh, Advocates vers us KIRAM VERMA PEON Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate WITH + W P.(C) 116/2010 GOVTOF NCTQF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus RANJIT CHOUDHARY, STENO Respondent Through Mr.S.P.Mehta, Advocate W P.fC) 117/2010 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 ! SHAMSHER SINGH UDC Respondent i Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate WITH i n + \M.P.(C) 118/2010 ' ' GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, ; TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner 1 Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, I Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh ' Kr.Singh, Advocates versus n RAlvj E5HAJAN, PEON Respondent Through Mlr. Sachin Chauhan, Advocate -I- \A/.P.(C) 119/2010 W.P.(C) 51/2010 & Connected matters Paqe 5 of 37 GOVTOh NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus GANPAT SINGH Respondent Through Mr.S.P. Mehta, Advocate I WITH -I- W P (C) 123/2010 I 1 GOVT OF NOT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, trade and taxes Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simian, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates j j versus C P YADAV PEON Respondent Through Nemo -I- W P fCI 124/2010 I GOVT OF NOT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, : TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner J n Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Siimran, i Mrs Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh i O Kr.Singh, Advocates , versus : AJAY KUMAR STENOGRAPHER Respondent , Through Nemo j WITH j I + W PYO 129/2010 I . I GOVT OF NOT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, j TRADE AND TAXES Petitioner ! ' Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, j Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh ! Kr.Singh, Advocates W.P.(C) 5117.010 & Connected matters versus Page 6 of 37 SHRl CHAND Respondent Through Mr. S.P. Mehta, Advocate WITH ' ' \M P fO 130/2010 GOVT OF NOT 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 W P.(C) 131/2010 . GOVT OF NOT 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 BRAFIAM SINGH PEON ■■... Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate W P (C) 265/2010 GOVT OF NOT 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 w p.(a 51/7010 & Connected matters . PaaeJ of 37 Q n H- W P (C) 1857/2010 H- . \/\/ P (r.1 1084/2010 GOVT.OF NCT OF DELFil St ORS.TFIROUGFI COMMISSIONER,TRADE 5( TAXES Petitioner n Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Sum an, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates vers us ANIL KUMAR Respondent Through Mr.Abhay Kumar and Mr.Tenzmg Tsering, Advocate \A/ P (C.) 1172/2010 GOVT,, OF NCT OF DELHI St ORS.THROUGH C0MMISS10NER,TRADE St TAXES Petitionei Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mi .Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus SMIT.VIMLA SEHGAL Respondent Through Mr.Arvind Nayar, Advocate GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI St OTHERS Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus PHOOL SINGH Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate + W P.fC) 1858/2010 GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI St ORS. Petitioner Through Mlrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, W.P.(C) 51/2010 & Connected matters PaQe 8 of 37. , h Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus BRAHAM SINGH,LDC Respondent Through Mr.S.P.Mehta, Advocate -I- \A/ P (C\ B644/201Q rnxAT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. • nnn n Petitionei Through Mrs.Avnish.Ahaiwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus ASHVVANl KUMAR! Respondent Through Nemo W P.(C) 4437/2010 GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS . Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mi s.Simi an, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh,Advocates V G1 S LI S RS )EPH Respondent Through Nemo W P.(C) 3056/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HOME) ' • n nnn Pf itionei Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simian, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus , , Page 9 of 37 W.P.(C) 5TOOIO & Connected matters RA| KUMAR Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate -I- W P.(C) 13806/2009 GOVT OF NOT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HOME) n Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.SiiTiran, 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 W P fCO 49/2010 GOVT OF NOT OF DEKH! ORS THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.SiiTiran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versus KRISHAN KUMAR Respondent Through Nemo W P.fC) 50/2010 GOVT OF NOT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY(HOME) Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mlr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates n versus VINOD KASHYAP Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate W.P.(C) 51/?010 & Crinnsrtecf matters PageJ^O^f^ WDTH xN.p.ic) iziam- GOVT OF NOT OF Kapoor with Mr.Nitesh, Singh, Advocates versus R.D. BOHET n Respondent Through Mr.A.K.Behra, Mr.K.C.Baliasingh, Advocate 'OLC JUSTICE PflADEEP NANDRAJOG 'BLE MR. JUSTICE WOOL CIHAiMD GARG Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? To be referred to the reporter or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes Yes Yes ] we preface our decision by noting the argument pf iearned counsel for the petitioners, being that so reprehensible is the conduct 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 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 urge that the respondents are not entitled to any hearing. The argument is emotional and is rejected at the outset for the reason a system n governed by the rule of law requires dispute resolution as per law. The submission made by iearned couns'el 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 Ail 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:- P^npll0f37 w p (D .-Sl/pnin & Connerlecl matters 1 ^ ! 2 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. 1 know what's legal, not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal ... 1 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 oflaw. More: "Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?" , • . n .Roper; "I'd cut down every law in England to do that! More: "Oh?....And when the last was down, and the Devi l 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 beoefit of lamn for my own safety's sake." 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 Us Tulslram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398 by the tfon ble Supreme Court of India. Paryp 12 of 37 W.PJC) 57/?fnQ & rnnnecLecl matters 4. In the aforesaid matters petitioners after telecast of news item captioned Programme 'VisheslV 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 accepting money from the persons lodged in jai l 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 al l the respondents. The petitioners also lodged an FIR against al l the respondents under Sections 7, 12, and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act on • 09 03.2005 itself. Q n 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 Authoi ity 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 befote - tne 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 larger bench A writ petition bearing No.721/2007 was also filed.before this Court against the order passed oh 24.11.2006 which stands admitted and Is now being taken for disposal with other connected matters by n this common order. Pf^qp 1.3 of 37 w P.(C.) 51/^^Tn Connected matters inAc- \ filed bv the respondents were 3^ -e ~ ,e« ome conf,:. of opinions referred howeve, to a in the two coordina Toinnn? Later on, on an . . , -,fi-hp nendency of W.P.(C) No. 721/2007. La , die in view of the penae y ^ 2561/2006, larger Bench application filed by the app ican i the tribunal deciding the matter contrary Tribunal without referring the matter o however concerned with the following question giving of the petitions before us. n Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the power conferred by clause (b) of the second Article 311(2) o f the Constitution read with Rule central Chrii Services (Classification. Control and Appeal) Rules. 1985 can be justifiably invoked and the impugne order sustained. h. The cominon ground taicen by the News of Aai Tai< news channel declined in writing to allow t o'rs and iournalists to Join in any investigation ,mo onduct of the applicant and consequently the case of the ctU" fnr dispensing with the enquiry was Government of India itself for invoking clause (b) of 2 Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. R.|e 19 of in The three conditions mentioned in sub-clause ( ) ^ Ihe CcT, "a>, televant oking of sub-Cause ,b, of the second proviso to Article 311(2) provides that; I Prtqp 14 of 37 . W p (r) S I/2010 &cmim£isdjmtters (a) Where a civi l 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 , u +-i (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, therefoie, bound to fal l. 12. Before the Appellate Authority, respondents submitted thatThe Orders passed by the disciplinary Authority in these cases do not meet the aforesaid test and thus the orders impugned in appeai 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 PdOG 15 of 37 W.P.(C) 51/POT'n & Cnnnp.ctecl maCters — ^ dismissing the respondents after conciuding that if was not ' -H Varripf filpd the afoi'Bsaicl wi it petitions. 14 " The order of dismissal passed in the case of Digambar Singh, an „™,oyee of Tihar Jail, (CWP No.13806/2009) which is similar to a,i rLses of Tiharjal, hmpiovees setting opt the the procedure as per the proviso of Sub clause 2 (b of Aitid the constitution of India is reproduced for the sake of reference, "Office of the Director General (Pi isons Prisons Headquarters; Tihar; New Dell Fll(659):Ci:Vigilancei2005:2187 ' Dated 27/9/05 WHEREAS onthe4th May, .^"efoie'r ?:;:fiLTo:wT'h%h(fcap«on, Tihar jail bana Ghoos mahak; and whereas .pfn^Dlgarnbar Singh wart TiTS iSTin JaHs o°r t^ intending to m^ TToTS(hiTT2°T 2002)"-," the rules made thereunder read with the Delhi Jail Manual; and whereas the said Shi-i Digambar Singrt Warder-599 was dated 4* May, order no. 5» Ma(, 2005 and further a case FIR No. 25/4Uu;d „irl Shri 2005 was registered, amongst others against the s D?gambar Singh, Warder-599 under Se9tjy ,12 nd U TTisTaTorAT^rpraa^nT,^ AMP) WHFREAS the above misconduct on the part of and WMtKtA^ \A/ardpr-599 is in violation of the said Shri Digambar Sinj , , npcons Act 2000 (Delhi - the foiiowing provisions of the Delhi Pnsons yt 20U J Art 2 of 2002) and the rules made tneieuiiuei tine provisions of the Delhi jail Manai, namely; Q nf the Delhi PrJimn^Art.^tmiD^^ 7002) Officers not to have business dealing with prisoners and others;- p^qp 1 6 of 37 p (D s7/?niO & Connectedrnmsrs indirectly with any prisoner. 'p^jsone" -th 'prSon administration. P^l/m nf nplhi Prisons (|ii5|3edlimiJ^^Iee^^ nf Officers) Rli 165,1988 ■clmunicauCof any Kini'^^aatever „ith"^ny° el'alve or |lJ'"\?o,d"'Bn';—orized communication of any Kind I^T'cmye^pr o^ S":,; intercourse wPatever with quarters (2) Mo subordinate officer shall at any time.- (a) hold any uncessary converse with any prisoner. fh) treat any prisoner with familiarity; or (r) I CLis any matter relating to the discipline o legulatlons of the jaii with or within the hearing of any prisoner The conduct clearly establishes nimmbar Sincjh \A/arder-599 had expressed his y ir-yrrrc; r-s,ryfs"'s,"?c; (Conduct) Rules, 1964; and whereas the relevant compact disc has also been seen by me; and whereas further the identity of the said Shn 'icrrs? :sr ?=r" cT s"K'SiSSi»i«j2t,oi;;fB«..«2»- 2005 o. \N. P^qp 17 of 37 p (C) 51/201 n ti Conneci^ matters o the 2"" June, 2005 vide Committee report diary No. 1643/SCJ(HQ) dated 2""^ June, 2005; and whereas the videotape the money thus paid for extending undue conveniences to persons visiting o" 2 of provisions of Delhi jail Manual; AND WHEREAS it is dear that the said Shri Digambar rd wdrlA-599 was not receiving money genuinely li'hv him and the overwhelming presumption that can SsFr %ss- '«r ssrs ii'ifH"iS ground; and whereas the owners of AAj Tak hpj/p categoricaily declined in writing to allow then So,,."a »!..!«. to lorn « "7 "'f Si"," s.oT ».... nf thH I am satisfied that it has not been reasonably have appeared for tendering evidence during the enquiiy, and whereas further the said Shri Digabar Singh WardeTssg is an employee of a particularly sensitwe rlenartment like Tihar jail, and, therefore, it was expect of him to conduct himself with a high standard of iniegri y and honesty, but he did not do so; AND WHEREAS in the Tihar Jail 'there variety of prisoners housed, many of whom are with previous convictions, convicts involved and oZ heinous offences, convicts nnrHf the Arms Act. Explosive Act as also the NDPS Act 'L f^irther TADA and ROTA- undertrials, dangerous ZopTnsity of the sold Shri Digambar Smgh.hfVarder-Sghto accept favours and give information in lieu of lilegal graZcatfon. the very security of Tihar itself couid be Psiqp 18 of 37 w p fC) 5ipmn & Connpctecl matters r'- w /• ri Alcin 'officisis in\/ol\/Gd in such nets of S on t.e pn.on from external sources. Mn\A/ therefore, in view of the above narrated '""e '"r plh'gh® D^'rtor imiTiediate effect. 11- ic; further directed that Shri Digambar Singh, to'wm fe®'denlitfart unifoTm'artides'wifh t J pTson Department immediately on the receipt of this orde,. (R P SINGH) director GENERAL (PRISONS)" 15 Similar orders of dismissal were n also- passed m ihe cases pertaining to the employees of Trade ahd Tax departmeht vide orders dated 08.07.2006. 16. A perusal of the orders would show that the basic reason oi dispensing to hold that the enquiry in the aforesaid matters was that the TV Channel "Aaj Tak" vide their letter dated Api ll, , addressed to the Addl, Secretary, Directorate of Vigiiance, GfJCTD^ as O informed that as a policy, the company does not allow any or its personnel including reporters, journalists etc. to join investigation o- any kind of who have performed their onerous duty In the public interest to inform the public the I ll-wills in the society. Moreover, Channel "Aaj Tak", being a 24X7 channel, they cannot afford any of their journalist/reporters to join any Investigation as they are busy in news and cuiTent affairs matfers. 17. in the case of jail employees additional ground was that ,n the Tiharjsil "there is a wide variety of prisoners housed, many of whom are undertriais with previous convictions, convicts involved in murder/rape and other heinous offences, convicts involved in offences under the Arms Act Explosive Act as also the NDPS Act and Pahp 19 of 37 14/ P fC) ■fl/iniO & Conn^ectedjmmrs involved in the attack on Parliament on 13 Decem o«,er death sentence con.icts and dangerous cnminais from other States, to ® ^ ^ ^,35 allowed n 1 R Vide common order dated dl.08.zuuy me all the petitions