2015 Supreme(SC) 257

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Jagdish Singh Khehar, S.A. Bobde, JJ.
Ved Mitter Gill – Appellant
versus
Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh and others – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3194 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.20379 of 2006) WITH TRANSFERRED CASE (C) NO.41 OF 2010 TRANSFERRED CASE (C) NO.42 OF 2010 TRANSFERRED CASE (C) NO.43 OF 2010 TRANSFERRED CASE (C) NO.44 OF 2010
Decided On : 26-03-2015

IMPORTANT POINT
Scope and ambit of clause (b) of second Proviso to Article 311(2) explained and applied.

Headnote:(a) Punjab Jail Manual – Para 91 to 132 – Jail staff including Dy. Suptd. of Jail, Asst. Suptd, of Jail, Head Warder and Warder are exclusively responsible for jail inmates – Police personnel were not responsible for supervisory control over jail inmates – Jail staff alone would be responsible for lapses within the jail premises – Action against the appellant and the petitioners not suffering from malice in fact or law. (Para 11, 12)

       (b) Service law – Dismissal – Competent authority concluding about blameworthiness of the appellant and the petitioners in escape of the four under trial prisoners – Conclusion based on sound reasoning delineating duties and lapses of the delinquents – No infirmity in order of dismissal. (Para 21)

       (c) Constitution of India – Article 311(2), second Proviso, clause (b) – Dispensing with departmental enquiry – Requirements – Satisfaction of competent authority – Appellant

       being a senior, permanent and non-transferable officer of the concerned jail, his junior jail officers, the only possible witnesses, were not likely to come forward to depose against him – Links of the escaped under-trial prisoners with the dreaded terrorist outfit also a deterrent for witnesses to come forward – Competent authority rightly recorded its satisfaction, giving reasons, about holding of departmental enquiry being reasonably not practical against the appellant/petitioners. (Para 22)

       (1985) 3 SCC 398; (1996) 10 SCC 659 – Relied upon

       (2006) 13 SCC 581; (2009) 9 SCC 24; (1985) 4 SCC 252; (1993) 4 SCC 269; (2003) 4 SCC 579 – Referred

       (d) Constitution of India – Article 311(2), second Proviso, clause (b) – Departmental enquiry dispense with in case of Dy. Suptd. Jail, Head Warder and Warder on ground that no official witnesses would depose – On the other hand the Suptd. Proceeded against departmentally – Appellant permanent and non-transferable officer of the jail – Suptd. an officer of another cadre, on deputation to the jail – No apprehension for witness employees of any aftermath from him – The two stand on different footings – No discrimination. (Para 26)

       (e) Service law – Departmental proceeding vis-à-vis criminal proceedings – Same witnesses as would be likely against appellant/petitioners in departmental enquiry, if held, deposing against the Suptd. in criminal case – Contention of invalidity of dispensing with enquiry in case of appellant/petitioners – Rejected on two grounds – Witnesses not afraid of the Suptd. being a deputationist – Secondly standard of proof in departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings different – While Constitution provides for dispensing departmental enquiry, criminal case has to be established beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 27)

       Facts of the case:

       In January 2004, appellant-Ved Mitter Gill was holding charge of the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Model Jail, Burail, Chandigarh. Dalbir Singh Sandhu was also holding the post of Deputy Superintendent of Jail, whilst Paramjit Singh Rana was posted as Assistant Superintendent of Jail, Nishan Singh and Inder Singh were working as Head Warder and Warder respectively.

       Four under trials namely Jagtar Singh Hawara, Paramjit Singh and Jagtar Singh Tara (who were facing trial for the assassination of a former Chief Minister of Punjab Shri Beant Singh) and Jagdev Singh, who was being tried for the charge of murder, escaped from the Model Jail, Burail, Chandigarh, by digging a 94 feet long underground tunnel.

       By an order dated 1.3.2004, the Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh dismissed the appellant and the petitioners in transferred cases from service with immediate effect.

       The orders of dismissal were assailed by the appellant, as well as by the petitioners, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench.

       All the above applications were dismissed by the Administrative Tribunal. Ved Mitter Gill assailed the order dated 30.1.2006 passed by the Administrative Tribunal before the High Court, which was dismissed.

       Finding of the Court:

       All the parameters laid down by this Court, for a valid/legal application of clause (b) to the second proviso under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, were duly complied with.

       Result: The appeal and transferred cases dismissed.