\{ IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserve :28.O7.2:OLO Date of Decision :O6.O8.2010 w.P.(c) 8L/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... PCtitiONCT Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates VCTSUS SOHAN LAL L.D.C ...,. 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.5Ll20L0 { AUGUST 06, 2OI.O --*11 PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J wP(c) 81/2070 Page 7 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 *< IN TI.IE I.IIGI.I. COI.JRT OF DELI-II AT NEW DE]-I{[ + w.P.(ci s1/2010 o/o Date of Reserve :.28.AV.2OLO Date of, Decision :06.O8'20L0 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ....' PCtitiONCT Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates VCTSUS JAI BHAGWAN ....' ResPondent Through Nemo wlTl-l + w.P.(c) 58/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES .'... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalurat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudlrary and "Mr.Nitesh l(r.Singh, Advocates VCTSUS SANJAY DAWAR, STENOGRAPHER .'... Respondent Through Mr. S.P.Mehta, Advocate wtTl-l + W.P.(C) 6712010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..'.. PCtitiONCT Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudlrary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates VCTSUS D J GUPTA ..... ResPondent Through Mr.ShYam Babu, Advocate w[Tt-l + w.P.rc\ 7t 12010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER' TRADE AND TAXES ..... PCtitiONCT Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat witlr Mrs'Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh w.P.rc) 57/2070 & connected matters Paqe 7 of 37 .--- I 7 Kr.Singh, Advocates VCTSUS GEETA MALHOTRA '.." ResPondent Through Mr.S.P.Mehta, Advocate WITH + W.P.(C) 7Bl2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... PCtitiONCT Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs'Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates VCTSUS A KJAIN ..... ResPondent Through Mr.S.P.Mehta, Advocate W!TH + w.P.(c) 81/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ....' PCtitiONCT Thror,rgh Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates VCTSUS SOHAN LAL L.D.C ,.". ResPondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate wlTl-l + W.P.(C) 83/2010 GOW OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ...'' PCtitiONCT Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates VCTSUS RAJESH SINGH STENO ...'. Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate WITI-I + W.P.(C) B7l2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... Petitioner w'P.n 57/2070 & connected matters Paqe 2 of 37 /o \\Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates VCTSUS SHASHI SINGH ..... ResPondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate WITH + W.P.(C) B8/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... PCtitiONCT Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates VCTSUS KARAN SINGH YADAV ASTO ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Advocate wtTt-l + W.P.(C) 90/2010 GOW OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... PCtitiONCT Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs'Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates I VCTSUS SATWANT KAUR ..... ResPondent Throurgh Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Advocate + w.P.(c) 9212010 . GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... PCtitiONCT Throurgh Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr,Singh, Advocates VCTSUS AMAR SINGH PEON ...,. Respondent Thror-rgh Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate Paqe 3 of 37 W.P.(O 57/2070 & Connected matters /l wlTl-l + w.P.(c) 11212010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ....' PCtitiONCT Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh' Kr.Singh, Advocates VCTSUS PRABHAJOSHI ..... ResPondent Through Mr.S.P.Mehta, Advocate WITH + w.P.(c) 113/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ... PCtitiONCT Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Sifflran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr'Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates VCTSUS MUSHTAQ AHMED, PEON ..... Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate WITI.I + w.P,(c) 114/2010 GOW OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ...,. PCtitiONCT Through Mrs.Avnish Alralwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates VCTSUS YAD RAM YADAV .... ResPondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate wlT['l + W.P.(C) 115i2010 GOW OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... PCtitiONCT Through Mrs,Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh wP.G) 57/2070 & connected matters Paqe 4 of 37 l2_ Kr.Singh, Advocates VCTSUS KIRAN VERMA PEON ..'.. ResPondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate wlT!-l + w.P.(c) 116i2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... PCtitiONCT Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latilca Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates VCTSUS RANJIT CHOUDHARY, STENO ....' Respondent Through Mr.S.P.Mehta, Advocate wlTl-0 + w.P.(c) 117/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, 'rRAD E AN D rAxu?n ro, n n M rs.Avn i s t ff"l*:l i,'i,.n M rs's i m ra n, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr,Singh, Advocates VCTSUS SHAMSHER SINGH UDC '.... Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chaulran, Advocate wlTl-{ + W.P.(C) 118/2010 GOW OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... PCtitiONCT Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs'Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates VCTSUS RAM BHAJAN, PEON ..... ResPondent Through Mr. Sachin Chaulran, Advocate WITI-I + W.P.(C) 119/2010 W.P.G) 57/2070 & Connected matters Pase 5 of 37 t3 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 VCTSUS \ GANPAT SINGH .".. ResPondent Through Mr.S.P. Mehta, Advocate WIT}N + w.P.(c) 12312010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER' TRADE AND TAXES '.... PEtitiONCT Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudlrary and Mr'Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates VCTSUS C P YADAV PEON ..... ResPondent Through Nemo WIThI I+ w,P.(c) 12412010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES .'... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs'Sirlran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates VCTSUS AJAY KUMAR srENfh?lffTt*:r" . . Respondent WIThI + w.P.(c) 12912010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... PCtitiONCT Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates VCTSUS W.P.rc) 57/2070 & Connected matters Paqe 6 of 37 )? SHRI CHAND ..... ResPondent Through Mr. S.P. Mehta, Advocate WIThI + w.P.(c) 130/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES ..... PCtitiONET Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs'Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Niteslr Kr.Singh, Advocates VCTSUS SWARAN GUJRAL ..." ResPondent Tlrrough Mr.S.P.Mehta, Advocate WIT]-I + w.P.(c) 131/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER' TRADE AND TAXES ..... Petitioner Through Mrs,Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs'Sifflran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates versuS BRAHAM SINGH PEON '..'. Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate WITH + w.P.(c'\ 265 '010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH COMMISSIONER, TBADE AND TAXES .'.'. Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Sin"lran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates VCTSUS VEENA ANAND ..... ResPondent Through Mr.Ajay K.Sharma, Advocate W.P.rc) 57/2070 & Connected matters WITI-I Paae 7 of 37 K + w,P.(c) 1084/2010 GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.THROUGH COMMISSIONER,TRADE & TAXES ..... Petitioner rh ro'n n Mi" lxl i'i ffixHf; : $ :xy ffi ,:il'il:?i' Kr.5ingh, Advocates VCTSUS . ANIL KUMAR ..... ResPondent rhroug hrvr:iii:XJ:Uila nd M r renzi ns wlTl-l + w.P.(c) 1172l2010 GOW. 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 VCTSUS SMT.VIMLA SEHGAL ..... Respondent rnrouott jH"'to NaYar, Advocate + W.P.(C) 1857/2010 .J GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI & OTHERS ..... PCtitiONCT Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates VCTSUS PHOOL SINGH ..... ResPondent Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate wtTt-l + w.P.(c) 1858i2010 GOW.OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, W.P,(C) 57/2070 & Connected matters Paoe B of 37 l( Mrs.Latika Choudlrary and .Mr'Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates VCTSUS BRAHAM SINGH,LDC '...' ResPondent Through Mr.S.P.Mehta, Advocate WITH + W.P.(C) 364412010 GOW,OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS' ..'.. Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Alralwat with Mrs'Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr'Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates VCTSUS ASHWANI KUMARI ..... ResPondent Through Nemo + w.P.n 4437 12010 GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..'.. PCtitiONCT Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs'Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates VCTSUS RS JEPH ..... ResPondent Through Nemo WITl.I + w.P.(c) 30s6/2010 GOW.OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HOME) ...'. Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Niteslr Kr.Singh, Advocates VCTSUS W.P.(O 57/2070 & Connected matters Paae 9 of 37 lry 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 Alralwat with Mrs'Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr'Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates VCTSUS . DTGAMBER t'*o*tnroush vrr.c.o.c;1,"':%"ll5fi.rr" *,.n M r.S. K,Sin ha, Advocate WITI-{ + w.P.(c) 4912010 GOVT OF NCT OF DEI(HI & ORS THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ....' PCtitiONCT Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs'Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh, Advocates VCTSUS KRISHAN KUMAR ..... ResPondent Through Nemo WITFI + w.P.(c) s0/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY(HOME) ..... Petitioner Through Mrs.Avnish Ahalwat with Mrs.Simran, Mrs.Latika Choudhary and Mr.Niteslr Kr.Singh, Advocates VCTSUS VINOD KASHYAP ..... Respondent Through Mr.Sachin Clrauhan, Advocate W.P.(O 5U2070 & Connected matters Paae 70 of 37 ta + wtrl-l w.P.n 72u2007 - .OO* OF NCT OF DELHI'AND ORS r ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Rajesh Kapoor with Mr.Nitesh, Singh, Advocates VCTSUS Through ..... Respondent Mr.A. l(.Behra, Mr. l(.C.Ba liasingh, Advocate R.D. BOHET CORAM: t-toN'BLE MR. JUSTICE FRADEEP IVANDRAiOG FIOr{',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? MOOI. CHAN{D GARG, [. * 1. We preface our decision by noting the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners, being that so reprehensible is the co'nduct 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. lt was urged that law lras to be interpreted, in the instant caSe, keeping in view the grave misdemeanour of the respondents. ln 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 tlre 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 orr the one side and his daughter Margret and his son-in-law Roper in the play ",A Man For All Seasons" by Robert Bolt. lt refers to an incident when Sir Thomas More was urged by his daughter, Margaret, and lris son-in- law, Roper, to arrest a man they regarded as evil. The dialogue is as under:- Yes Yes Yes W.P.rc) 57/2010 & Connected matters Paae 77 of 37 t7 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 lcnow what's legal, not what's right. And l'll stick to what's legal '.. I am not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find suclr plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm not a voyager. But in the thickets of the law, Oh, there l'm a fo reste r. " 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: "l'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 thinl< you could stand upriglrt in the winds that would blow then?...Yes, I'd glve the Devil the berlefit of law, for rny 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 lndia in the prevailing circumstances at the relevant time was justified or not' 3. The circumstances in which enquiry can be dispensed witlr now stands explained in the guidelines forming part of Rule 19 of the CCS(CCA) Rules after the pronouncement of tlre judgment in the case of lJnion of tndia Vs. Tulsira (1985) 3 SCC 398 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. W.P.(O 57/2070 & Connected matters Paqe 72 of 37 4. ln 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 accepting money from the persons lodged in jail and from those coming to meet them; respondents posted in Trade and Tax Department were snown 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, J'2, 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 tlreir services without holding any domestic enquiry on the pretext that the owners of the T.v. News Channel 'Aaj Tal<' 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 Autlrority which were dismissed with the only modification of converting 'dismissal'to'removal'. ' 7 . The respondents than approached the Central Administr-ative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi. A strange situation arose before the Tribunal, in as much as O.A. No.2BB4l2005,200512005, 289712005, 28ggl20o5 and 289812005 were dismissed vide order dated L3.04.2006; while a petition filed by One R'D'Bohet being o.A.No.77 B12006 was allowed by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 24.17.2006 without referring the matter to larger bench. A writ petition bearing No.72I\2OO7 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.(O 57/2070 & Connected matters Paqe 73 of 37 dl B. 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. 72I12O07. Later on, on an application filed by the applicant in OA No. 256112006,larger Bench revived the matters and disposed all of them vide order dated 31.08 .2OOg 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 Articte 3Il(2) of the Constitution read with Rule 79 of the Central Civit Services (Ctassification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 7985 can be iustifiabty 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 tlre department become weak" for dispensing witlr the enquiry was contrary to Rule of Law not sufficient for reaching to the Conclusion that it was not practicable to hold the enquiry. lt 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 2n0 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 thafi W.P.G) 57/2070 & Connected matters Paqe 74 of 37 AA (a) where a civil servant, alone or together witlr, 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 tlre 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 gerreral 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 tlre Department's case against the civil servant is weak and is, tlrerefore, 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 tlre respondents, etc. They also questioned the authenticity of the compact discs. lt 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. lt was also submitted that when rqgular 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 2I.L2'2005 and 24J0.2007 except that the decision to dismiss was converted in 'Removal'. 13. lt 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.(O 57/2070 & Connected matters Paqe 75 of 37 ,21 dismissing the respondents after concluding that it was not reasonably practicable to hold a departmental enquiry in tlrese cases were not sustainable in law. The petitiorrers aggrieved from the aforesaid order filed the aforesaid writ petitions. l-4. The order of dismissal passed in the case of Digambar Singlr, an employee of Tihar Jail, (cwP No.13B0612009) which is similar to all other cases of TiharJail Employees setting out the reason for adopting tlre procedure as per the proviso of sub clause 2 (b) of Article 311 of the Constitution,of lndia is reproduced for the sal<e of reference: ''Office of the Director General (Prisons) Prisons Headquarters: Tihar: New Delhi F11(659) :CJ :Vig i la nce :2005 :2 187 Dated 2719105 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 priso'nerJ 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 2OO2) and the rules made thereunder read with the DelhiJail Manual; AND WHEREAS the said Shri Digambar Singh' Warder-599 was placed under suspension vide this office order no. F-11(Misc')/CJlVig./2005/998-1011 dated 4tn May' 2005 and further a case f tn No. 25l2OO5 dated the 5th May' 2005 was registered, amongst others, against the said shri Digambar Singh, Warder-599 under Sections 7,L2 and L3 oflne preveniion of Corruption Act, (49 of 19BB) with the Police Station, Anti Corruption Banch, Old Secetariat: Delhi; AND WHEREAS tlre above misconduct on the part of the said Shri Digambar 5ingh, Warder-599 is in violation of the following provisions of the Delhi Prisons Act 2000 (Delhi Act 2 of 2ObD and the rules made thereunder read with the provisions of the DelhiJail Manal, namely; officers not to have business dealing with prisoners and others:- 2002) W.P.(Q 57/2070 & Connected matters Paae 76 of 37 pq (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 ad ministration. le 145 Prison Director-General (Prisons) vide order No.F.11/Misc./c)Nig.2ao5ft2/2 dated 26th May, 2005' on 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 -uny unauthorized communication of any kind whatsoever with anY Prisoner: (c ) correspond or hold any intercourse whatever with any discharged Prisoner; or (di permit any discharge prisoner or any relative or intend of any iuch prisoner to visit or remain at his q ua rters (2) No subordinate officer shall at any time:- (a)holdanyuncessaryconversewithanyprisoner: (b) treat any prisoner with familiarity; or (c)discussanymatterrelatingtothgdisciplineor iegulations of ttr-e lait with or within the hearing of any prisoner: The conduct clearly establishes that the said shri Digambar Singh, Wardei-S99 had expressed his ready wiiiingness 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 w.P.(C) 57/2070 & Connected matters Paqe 77 of 37 frr the 2nd June, 2005 vide Committee report diary No' L6431SCJ(HQ) dated 2nd June, 2005; AND WHEREAS the videotape footage indicated that the money thus paid for extending undue facilities and conveniences to persons visiting on prisoners waS in violation of the Obttri Prisons'Act, 2000 (Delhi Act 2 of 2OO2) and the rules made thereunder read witlr the provisions of DelhiJail Manual; AND WHEREAS it is clear 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