Ved Mitter Gill vs U.T. Administration, Chandigarh & Ors

3. In January 2004, appellant-Ved Mitter Gill was holding charge of the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Model Jail, Burail, Chandigarh. At the same juncture, Dalbir Singh Sandhu (petitioner in Transferred Case (C) No. 42 of 2010) was also holding the post of Deputy Superintendent of Jail, whilst Paramjit Singh Rana (petitioner in Transferred Case (C) No. 41 of 2010) was posted as Assistant Superintendent of Jail, Nishan Singh (petitioner in Transferred Case (C) No. 44 of 2010) and Inder Singh (petitioner in Transferred Case (C) No. 43 of 2010) were working as Head Warder and Warder respectively.

6. Dissatisfied with the order dated 1.3.2004, the appellant as well as the petitioners, assailed the respective orders of their dismissal from service, by preferring appeals to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh. General (Retd.) S.F. Rodrigues, the then Administrator of the Union Territory, Chandigarh, adjudicated upon their appeals both on merits, as well as, on their maintainability. Insofar as the merits are concerned, he arrived at the conclusion, that the competent authority had rightly invoked clause (b) of the second proviso under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Insofar as the issue of maintainability is concerned, the Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh recorded, that the appeals were not maintainable, as the order passed by the Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory of Chandigarh, constituted an order passed by the Government, from which there was no remedy of appeal.

9. It is imperative in the facts and circumstances of this case, to extract herein, the order dated 1.3.2004, passed by the Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh against Ved Mitter Gill. The same is accordingly being reproduced hereunder:

(5) Meeting of the under trials with the other suspected prisoners within the jail as well as conspirators outside the jail were neither supervised nor checked in violation of para 106 of the said Manual.

And whereas the above conduct of the said Shri Gill establishes that he was directly involved in the conspiracy to help the above-mentioned under trials to escape from the Model Jail, Chandigarh. It has also come to light during investigation that three of the escaped under trials had linkage with the Babbar Khalsa International, a known and a dreaded terrorist organization, which is involve in anti-national and anti-State activities. The said Shri V.M. Gill is a senior, permanent and non- transferable official of the Model Jail, Chandigarh and junior jail officials, who are witnesses in the above case are not likely to come forward to depose against him if disciplinary proceedings are initiated so long as he remains in service, for fear of earning his wrath in future. Further, due to the involvement of the escaped under trials, with the Babbar Khalsa International, a known and dreaded terrorist organization, no witness is likely to come forward to depose against him in the disciplinary proceedings, if initiated, due to fear of life. Independence assessment also is that three of the escaped under trials are likely, inter alia, to pose a danger to the lives of the people. In these circumstances I am satisfied that the holding of an inquiry as contemplated by Article 311 (2)

Now, therefore, I being the competent authority exercising the powers conferred by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India, having come to the conclusion that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry, hereby dismiss the said Shri V.M. Gill, from service with immediate effect.

106. Deputy Superintendent to regulate interviews and communications.- It shall be the duty of the Deputy Superintendent to regulate all interviews and communications between prisoners and persons who are not prisoners and to prevent all persons who are not duly authorised in that behalf by competent authority from entering the jail premises or having any access of any kind to, or communication with, any prisoner, and to arrange that the proper officer of the Jail is present during all interviews held.

110. Deputy Superintendent to hold parade every Sunday.- The Deputy Superintendent shall hold a parade of all the prisoners for the time being confined in the jail on every Sunday Evening and shall,

We with respect are unable to agree therewith.

(emphasis is ours)

(emphasis is ours)

The reason for dispensing with the inquiry need not, therefore, find a place in the final order. It would be usual to record the reason separately and then consider the question of the penalty to be imposed and pass the order imposing the penalty. It would, however, be better to record the reason in the final order in order to avoid the allegation that the reason was not recorded in writing before passing the final order but was subsequently fabricated. The reason for dispensing with the inquiry need not contain detailed particulars, but the reason must not be vague or just a repetition of the language of clause (b) of the second proviso. For instance, it would be no compliance with the requirement of clause (b) for the disciplinary authority simply to state that he was satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to hold any inquiry. Sometimes a situation may be such that it is not reasonably practicable to give detailed reasons for dispensing with the inquiry. This would not, however, per se invalidate the order. Each case must be judged on its own merits and in the light of its own facts and circumstances.

(emphasis is ours)

(emphasis is ours)

* * * Where a government servant is dismissed, removed or reduced in rank by applying clause (b) or an analogous provision of the service rules and he approaches either the High Court under Article 226 or this Court under Article 32, the court will interfere on grounds well established in law for the exercise of power of judicial review in matters where administrative discretion is exercised. It will consider whether clause (b) or an analogous provision in the service rules was properly applied or not. ... In examining the relevancy of the reasons, the court will consider the situation which according to the disciplinary authority made it come to the conclusion that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry. ... In considering the relevancy of the reasons given by the disciplinary authority the court will not, however, sit in judgment over them like a court of first appeal."

(emphasis is ours)

20. We shall now advert to the impugned order to determine, whether the three parameters laid down for the valid invocation of clause (b) to the second proviso under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, were made out. The first ingredient, which is a prerequisite to the sustainable application of the above clause (b) is, that the delinquency alleged should be such as would justify, any one of the three punishments, namely, dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. We have already extracted hereinabove the order dated 1.3.2004, whereby, the appellant-Ved Mitter Gill was dismissed from service, with immediate effect. Its perusal reveals, that the punishment was based on reasons (recorded in the impugned order) divided into different compartments. The first is contained in the first paragraph, which deals with the duties and responsibilities vested with Ved Mitter Gill, as Deputy Superintendent, Model Jail, Burail, Chandigarh. The second component deals with the escape of four under- trials from Model Jail, Burail, Chandigarh. Three of the under-trials, who had escaped, were involved in the assassination of Shri Beant Singh, a former Chief Minister of State of Punjab. The instant paragraph also records, the factum that the said three under-trials were having links with Babbar Khalsa International, a terrorist organization. The fourth under- trial was being tried separately, for the offence of murder. The third component of the impugned order, relates to the material taken into consideration to evaluate the lapses committed by the appellant/petitioners, as would reveal their involvement with reference to the alleged delinquency, justifying the punishment of dismissal from service.

23. The third essential ingredient, for a valid application of clause (b) to the second proviso under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, is that, the competent authority must record, the reasons of the above satisfaction in writing. In the present case, there is no serious dispute on this issue, because the reasons for the satisfaction have been recorded by the competent authority in the impugned order (dated 1.3.2004) itself.

24. For the reasons recorded above, we are satisfied, that all the parameters laid down by this Court, for a valid/legal application of clause

28. No other submission was advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for appellant/petitioners. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the present appeal, and the connected transferred cases. The same are accordingly dismissed.

March 26, 2015.

[HEARD BY HON'BLE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND HON'BLE S.A.BOBDE,JJ.] Date : 26/03/2015 This appeal and transferred cases were called on for judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. M. C. Dhingra,Adv.

Ms. Naresh Bakshi,AOR For Respondent(s)Ms. Naresh Bakshi,AOR Ms. Kamini Jaiswal,AOR Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat,AOR Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde.

Leave granted in S.L.P.(C) No.20379 of 2006.

For the reasons recorded in the Reportable judgment, which is placed on the file, the appeal, and the connected transferred cases are dismissed.