# VED MITIER GILL v. UNION TERRITORY ADMINISTRATION, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [2015] 5 S.C.R. 73
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2015-03-26
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 3194 of 2015
- **Bench:** Jag Dish Singh Khehar, S.A. Bobde
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ved-mitier-gill-v-union-territory-administration-chandigarh-and-others-30852
- **Pages:** 49

## Headnote

C
Constitution of India, 1950:
Art. 311(2) second proviso, clause (b}- Compliance
of- Jail .break incident - Four under trials, three facing trial 0
for assassination of former Punjab Chief Minister, and one
tried for charge of murder - Escape from jail by digging 94
feet long underground tunnel - Dismissal of appellant and
petitioners-four jail staff, two of them discharging duties in
the capacity of Deputy Superintendent of Jail, and other two E
as Head Warder and Warder respectively, on account of
lapses committed by them - Said order passed by Advisor
to the Administrator; Union Territory exercising powers u/Art.
311(2) clause (b) to the second proviso, on holding that it
was not practicable to hold an inquiry- Said order upheld by F
Administrator, Union Territory and thereafter, by the tribunal
as also High Court - On appeal, held: All the parameters
laid down for a valid/legal application of clause (b) to the
second proviso u/Art. 311 (2), duly complied with -Punishment
of dismissal from service was fully justified, as evaluation of G
the duties and responsibilities of the jail staff showed that
their delinquency resulted in the escape of four dreaded
prisoners- Competent authority was satisfied that it was not
reasonably practicable to hold a departmental proceeding H
73
74
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015) 5 S.C.R.
A against the jail staff and the competent authority had recorded
reasons for its satisfaction.
Art. 311 (2) second proviso, clause (b) - Invocation of
- Requirement of satisfaction of three ingredients -
B Explained.
Punjab Jail Manual - Post of Deputy Superintendent
Jail, Assistant Superintendent Jail, Head Warder and Warder
- Duties and responsibilities - Nature of - Held:
c Responsibility of jail inmates exclusively rests on the
shoulders of the jail staff- Within the jail premises, only the
jail staff can be permitted to function and in case of lapses
within the jail premises, it is the jail staff alone which is
responsible.
D
• Dismissing the appeal and the transferred cases,
the Court
•
HELD: 1.1 For invoking clause (b) of the second
E proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, three
ingredients should be satisfied. The first ingredient,
which is a prerequisite to the sustainable application of
the clause (b) to the second proviso under Article 311(2)
is, that the delinquency alleged should be such as would
F justify, any one of the three punishments, namely,
dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. The perusal of
the order whereby, the appellant-VMG was dismissed
from service, with immediate effect reveals, that the
punishment was based on reasons recorded in the
G impugned order. One of the component of the impugned
order was with regard to the material taken into
consideration to evaluate the lapses committed by the
appellant/petitioners, as would reveal their involvement
H with reference to the alleged delinquency, justifying the
punishment of dismissal from service. [Para 20) [115-G-
VED MITIER GILL v. UNION TERRITORY ADMN.,
75
CHANDIGARH
H; 116-A-B, D-F]
A
1.2 The responsibility of all the jail inmates (safe
custody of all prisoners) rested on the shoulders of VMG
and the petitioners who assisted him in the same. The
petitioners were associated with the appellant and B
assisted him in discharging his said duties. Had the
appellant-VMG, and the petitioners, performed their
duties diligently, there could not have been any
possibility, of the escape under reference. Separate
reasons were expressed, by the competent authority in C
arriving at its conclusion. The impugned order fully
establishes the inferences recorded. The determination
by
the
competent authority,
when
viewed
dispassionately with reference to the duties assigned 0
to VMG, leaves no room for any doubt, that the
competent authority was justified in concluding, that the
four prisoners could never have escaped, if the
appellant-VMG, and the petitioners, had diligently
discharged the duties assigned to them. Having so E
conclude

## Text

_Characters 0–39,810 of 84,939. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39810 for what follows._

[2015) 5 S.C.R. 73
73
VED MITIER GILL
A
v.
UNION TERRITORY ADMINISTRATION, CHANDIGARH
AND OTHERS
B
(Civil Appeal No. 3194 of 2015 etc.)
MARCH 26, 2015.
[JAG DISH SINGH KHEHAR AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.]
C
Constitution of India, 1950:
Art. 311(2) second proviso, clause (b}- Compliance
of- Jail .break incident - Four under trials, three facing trial 0
for assassination of former Punjab Chief Minister, and one
tried for charge of murder - Escape from jail by digging 94
feet long underground tunnel - Dismissal of appellant and
petitioners-four jail staff, two of them discharging duties in
the capacity of Deputy Superintendent of Jail, and other two E
as Head Warder and Warder respectively, on account of
lapses committed by them - Said order passed by Advisor
to the Administrator; Union Territory exercising powers u/Art.
311(2) clause (b) to the second proviso, on holding that it
was not practicable to hold an inquiry- Said order upheld by F
Administrator, Union Territory and thereafter, by the tribunal
as also High Court - On appeal, held: All the parameters
laid down for a valid/legal application of clause (b) to the
second proviso u/Art. 311 (2), duly complied with -Punishment
of dismissal from service was fully justified, as evaluation of G
the duties and responsibilities of the jail staff showed that
their delinquency resulted in the escape of four dreaded
prisoners- Competent authority was satisfied that it was not
reasonably practicable to hold a departmental proceeding H
73
74
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015) 5 S.C.R.
A against the jail staff and the competent authority had recorded
reasons for its satisfaction.
Art. 311 (2) second proviso, clause (b) - Invocation of
- Requirement of satisfaction of three ingredients -
B Explained.
Punjab Jail Manual - Post of Deputy Superintendent
Jail, Assistant Superintendent Jail, Head Warder and Warder
- Duties and responsibilities - Nature of - Held:
c Responsibility of jail inmates exclusively rests on the
shoulders of the jail staff- Within the jail premises, only the
jail staff can be permitted to function and in case of lapses
within the jail premises, it is the jail staff alone which is
responsible.
D
• Dismissing the appeal and the transferred cases,
the Court
•
HELD: 1.1 For invoking clause (b) of the second
E proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, three
ingredients should be satisfied. The first ingredient,
which is a prerequisite to the sustainable application of
the clause (b) to the second proviso under Article 311(2)
is, that the delinquency alleged should be such as would
F justify, any one of the three punishments, namely,
dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. The perusal of
the order whereby, the appellant-VMG was dismissed
from service, with immediate effect reveals, that the
punishment was based on reasons recorded in the
G impugned order. One of the component of the impugned
order was with regard to the material taken into
consideration to evaluate the lapses committed by the
appellant/petitioners, as would reveal their involvement
H with reference to the alleged delinquency, justifying the
punishment of dismissal from service. [Para 20) [115-G-
VED MITIER GILL v. UNION TERRITORY ADMN.,
75
CHANDIGARH
H; 116-A-B, D-F]
A
1.2 The responsibility of all the jail inmates (safe
custody of all prisoners) rested on the shoulders of VMG
and the petitioners who assisted him in the same. The
petitioners were associated with the appellant and B
assisted him in discharging his said duties. Had the
appellant-VMG, and the petitioners, performed their
duties diligently, there could not have been any
possibility, of the escape under reference. Separate
reasons were expressed, by the competent authority in C
arriving at its conclusion. The impugned order fully
establishes the inferences recorded. The determination
by
the
competent authority,
when
viewed
dispassionately with reference to the duties assigned 0
to VMG, leaves no room for any doubt, that the
competent authority was justified in concluding, that the
four prisoners could never have escaped, if the
appellant-VMG, and the petitioners, had diligently
discharged the duties assigned to them. Having so E
concluded,
about
the
responsibility
and
blameworthiness of the appellant/petitioners, there can
be no doubt that the punishment of dismissal from
service, was fully justified, as their delinquency had
resulted in the escape of four dreaded prisoners. [Para F
21) [116-G; 117-G-H]
1.3 The second ingredient is the satisfaction of the
competent authority, that it was not reasonably
practicable, to hold a regular departmental enquiry, G
against the employees concerned. Amongst the reasons
indicated depicting the involvement of the appellant/
petitioners, it has been recorded, that VMG being a
senior, permanent and non-transferable officer of the Jail,
his junior jail officers, who alone would have been H
76
. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 5 S.C.R.
A witnesses in such departmental proceedings, were not
likely to come forward to depose against him, for fear of
earning his wrath in future. The escaped under-trial
prisoners had links with the dreaded terrorist
organization. It would be proper to take judicial notice
B of the fact that a large number of terrorists came to be
acquitted during the period in question, on account of
the fact, that witnesses did not appear to depose against
them on account of fear, or alternatively, the witnesses
C who appeared before the concerned courts, for
recording their deposition, turned hostile, for the same
reason. The situation presented in the factual narration
noticed in the impugned order, clearly achieves the
benchmark, for the satisfaction at the hands of the
o competent authority, that it would not have been
reasonably practicable, to hold a departmental
proceeding against the appellant/petitioners, in terms of
the mandate contained under Article 311(2) of the
E
Constitution of India. [Para 22] (118-B-H; 119-A]
1.4 The third essential ingredient is that, the
competent authority must record, the reasons of the
satisfaction in writing. In the instant case, the reasons
for the satisfaction have been recorded by the competent
F authority in the impugned order itself. [Para 23] (119-B]
1.5 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,
G were duly complied with. [Para 24] [119-C-D]
1.6 The appellant and the petitioners cannot be
placed on the same pedestal as the DSR, the then
Superintendent of the Jail. The reason was that VMG was
H holding the senior-most, permanent and non-
VED MITTER GILL v. UNION TERRITORY ADMN.,
77
CHANDIGARH
transferable position, at the Jail, whereas DSR was only A
a deputationist at the said jail. Accordingly, the parallel
sought to be drawn between the controversy in the
instant case, and the departmental proceedings initiated
against the DSR is fallacious. [Para 26] [120-D-G]
B
1.7 The submission that if witnesses can appear
in open court proceedings before the trial court, with
reference to the same set of allegations, they could
surely have appeared, in a departmental proceeding as
well. The analogy invoked by the counsel representing C
the appellant/petitioners, is wholly misconceived. The
reasons for dispensing with the departmental enquiry,
cannot be dependent upon the holding or not holding
of criminal proceedings, against the appellant/ 0
petitioners. Once the parameters stipulated in clause (b)
of the second proviso to Article 311(2) are satisfied, the
submissions by the counsel for the appellant/petitioners,
would not arise. [Para 27] [121-A-E]
Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab (2006) 13 SCC 581;
State of Punjab v. Harbhajan Singh (2007) 15 SCC 217;
Southern Railway Officers Association v. Union of India
2009 (12) SCR 429: (2009) 9 SCC 24; Union of India
v. Tulsiram Patel 1985 (2) Suppl. SCR 131: (1985) 3
SCC 398; Satyavir Singh v. Union of India 1985 (2)
Suppl. SCR 791 : (1985) 4 sec 252; Ku/dip Singh v.
State of Punjab 1996 (6) Suppl. SCR 339: (1996) 10
SCC 659; Union of India v. R. Reddappa 1993 (1)
Suppl. SeR 503: (1993) 4 sec 269; Indian Railway
Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar 2003 (2) SCR
387: (2003) 4 sec 579; Ku/dip Singh v. State of Punjab
1996 (6) Suppl. SCR 339: (1996) 10 sec 659 -
referred to.
E
F
G
H
78
A
B
c
D
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 5 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
(2006) 13 sec 581
Referred to.
Para 13
(200·1) 15 sec 211
Referred to.
Para 13
2009 (12) SCR 429
Referred to.
Para 14
1985 (2) Suppl. SCR 131 Referred to.
Para 14
1985 (2) Suppl. SCR 791 Referred to.
Para 14
1996 (6) Suppl. SCR 339 Referred to.
Para 14
1993 (1) Suppl. SCR 503 Referred to.
Para 14
2003 (2) SCR 387
Referred to.
Para 14
1996 (6) Suppl. SCR 339 Referred to.
Para 19
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
3194of2015
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.05.2006 of the
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ
Petition No. 5682 of 2006
WITH
T. C. (C) Nos. 41, 42, 43 &44 of2010
M. C. Dhingra, Piyush Kant Roy, Amit Chaudhary,
Ashwin Kr. Gupta, Tushar Bakshi, Naresh Bakshi, M. S.
G Doabia, Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Kamini Jaiswal for the
appearing parties.
H
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. 1. Through this
VED MITIER GILL v. UNIONTERRITORYADMN.,
79
CHANDIGARH [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
common order we propose to dispose of the Special Leave A
Petition (C) No. 20379 of 2006 as well as the Transferred Case
(C) Nos. 41-44 of 2010. The aforesaid transferred cases were
pending before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the High Court'). Whilst
the Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20379 of 2006 came to be 8
filed before this Court assailing the order dated 1.5.2006
passed by the High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 5682 of
2006. The prayer for transfer was premised on the fact that
the transferred cases were couched in the same factual C
foundation and raised similar legal issues, as were being
canvassed through Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20379 of
2006. In the above view of the matter, while disposing of the
special leave petition, as well as, the transferred cases, we
shall refer to the facts in Ved Mitter Gill's case, i.e., the matter o
pending in this Court as against the order passed by the High
Court on 1.5.2006 dismissing Civil Writ Petition No.5682 of
2006.
2. Leave granted.
E
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) F
was also holding the post of Deputy Superintendent of Jail,
whilst Parariljit 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 lnder Singh (petitioner in Transferred Case (C) G
No. 43 of 2010) were working as Head Warder and Warder
respectively.
4. Whilst the appellant/petitioners were discharging
their duties in the capacity indicated hereinabove, four under H
80
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 5 S.C.R.
A 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 an
B underground tunnel. The approximate length of the tunnel is
stated to be 94 feet. The description of the above tunnel has
been expressed in a report dated 15.4.2004 submitted by an
Enquiry Committee constituted to go into the lapses committed
C by the jail authorities in the above episode of escape, as also
to determine, the remedial measures for prevention of such a
jail-break in future. The description of the tunnel in the report,
is reproduced below:
D
E
F
"2.4 An inspection of barrack No.7 of Burail Jail from
where four undertrial escaped made a number of
revelations. The 94 feet long and about 21" x 21" broad
tunnel was a very professionally done job. The tunnel
had three sections, two vertical and one horizontal as
under:
a) Vertical straight Section below the barrack 14'
b) Horizontal portion with almost perfect
precision and direction
c) Vertical portion outside the main perimeter
wall used for exit. It was slightly inclined for
72'
easy footage for escape"
08'
G The aforesaid under-trials had escaped during the night
intervening January 21-22, 2004. Resultantly, a first information
report bearing no. 17 was registered at Police Station Sector
34, Chandigarh. The appellant, as well as, the petitioners came
to be detained after the registration of the first information
H
VED MITIER GILL v. UNION TERRITORY ADMN.,
81
CHANDIGARH [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.)
re~~
A
5. By an order dated 1.3.2004, the Advisor to the
Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh having invoked
clause (b) to the second proviso under Article 311 (2) of the
Constitution of India, dismissed the appellant from service with B
immediate effect. Similar orders were passed against the
petitioners.
6. Dissatisfied with the order dated 1.3.2004, the
appellant as well as the petitioners, assailed the respective c
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 D
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 E
not maintainable, as the order passed by the Advisor to the
Administrator, Union Territory of Chandigarh, constitut£d an
order passed by the Government, from which there was no
remedy of appeal.
F
7. The order of dismissal from service dated 1.3.2004,
passed by the Advisor to the Administrator of the Union Territory
of Chandigarh, as well as the order dated 11.2.2005 passed
by the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh were assailed G
by the appellant, as well as by the petitioners, before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (hereinafter
referred to as, the Administrative Tribunal). Ved Mitter Gill, the
appellant herein, preferred Original Application No. 149/PB
of 2005, Dalbir Singh Sandhu filed Original Application No. H
82
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2015] 5 S.C.R.
A 97/PB of 2005, Paramjit Singh Rana had raised his challenge
by filing Original Application No. 188/PB of 2005, whereas,
Nishan Singh and lnder Singh filed Original Application Nos.
39/PB and 40/ PB of 2005 respectively.
B
8. All the above applications were dismissed by the
Administrative Tribunal through a common order dated
30.1.2006. Ved Mitter Gill assailed the order dated 30.1.2006
passed by the Administrative Tribunal before the High Court,
by preferring Civil Writ Petition No. 5682 of 2006. The same
C was dismissed by an order dated 1.5.2006. The order passed
by the High Court on 1.5.2006 came to be challenged before
this Court through Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20379 of
2006. The same has given rise to the present appeal. The
D writ petitions filed by the others, namely, Dalbir Singh Sandhu,
Paramjit Singh Rana, Nishan Singh and lnder Singh were
pending before the High Court. Separate writ petitions were
preferred on their behalf, wherein they had assailed the
common order passed by the Administrative Tribunal dated
E 30.1.2006. The above writ petitions were transferred to this
Court, to be heard along with the Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 20379 of 2006. This is how the present appeal and
petitions have jointly come up for hearing before us.
F
G
H
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:
"CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION
HOME DEPARTMENT
ORDER
Shri V.M. Gill, Deputy Superintendent Model Jail,
VED MITTER GILL v. UNION TERRITORY ADMN.,
83
CHANDIGARH [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
Chandigarh (under suspension) was appointed as Clerk A
on 1.1.1988 and thereafter promoted as Assistant
Superintendent Jail on 28.3.1990 and was promoted as
Deputy Superintendent Jail, Model Jail, Chandigarh vide
order dated 25.5.2001. He was thus required to be fully
aware of his duties as prescribed in the Punjab Jail Manual B
as adopted for the Union Territory Chandigarh and the duty
orders passed by the Superintendent, Model Jail,
Chandigarh dated 29.5.2001, read along with paras 92 to
132 of the Punjab Jail Manual, forthe enforcement of laws, C
rules, regulations, directions and orders concerning the
management of the jail and the prisoners confined therein.
The said Shri V.M. Gill by virtue of his duties as such was
required to do all acts and things necessary or expedient
for ensuring the safe custody of all the prisoners at any time D
receive into or confined in the jail as well as for enforcing
and maintaining discipline and order amongst such
prisoners and all subordinate officers of the jail. The said
Shri Gill was fully aware that he was required to see for
himself every prisoner once in every 24 hours and to visit E
every barrack, ward, cell, compartment and every other part
of the jail and premises thereof every 24 hours. It was
thereof his duty to be present every evening when the
prisoners were locked up for the night and every morning
when the prisoners were taken out of the sleeping wards,
F
cells or other compartments, satisfy himself both by night
and morning that all the prisoners were present and in safe
custody and to forthwith report every unusual occurrence of
a serious nature to the Superintendent of the Model Jail. G
The said Shri Gill was fully aware of his duties that he was
required at uncertain times, atleast once a week to cause
each prisoner and all clothing and bedding and all wards,
cells and other compartments, workshops, latrines and other
places frequented by the prisoners, to be thoroughly H
84
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 5 S.C.R.
searched for prohibited articles; to regulate all interviews
and communications between the prisoners and persons
who were not prisoners and to prevent all persons who were
not duly authorized by the 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 was present during all the interviews
held;
And whereas on the night intervening January 21/22, 2004,
four under trial prisoners namely Jagtar Singh Hawara, s/o
Sher Singh, Paramjit Singh, s/o Jagjit Singh, Jagtar Singh
Tara, s/o Sadhu Singh and Dev Singh, s/o Madan Singh
lodged in the Model Jail, Burail escaped through a tunnel
dug from their barrack. The first three under-trials namely
Jagtar Singh Hawara, s/o Sher Singh, Paramjit Singh, s/o
Jagjit Singh and Jagtar Singh Tara, s/o Sadhu Singh were
being tried to their involvement in the assassination of S.
Beant Singh, then Chief Minister, Punjab and had links with
Babbar Khalsa International a terrorist organization, while
Dev Singh was being tried for murder. The said Shri V.M.
Gill was fully aware that Jagtar Singh Hawara S/o Sher
Singh, Paramjit Singh, s/o. Jagjit Singh, Jagtar Singh Tara,
s/o Sadhu Singh were dreaded terrorists and high security
prisoners;
And whereas a case F.l.R. No.17, dated 22.1.2004 under
Sections223,224,452,457, 120-B, 121, 121-A, 123,217,
221 IPC, P.S. 34, Chandigarh was registered with respect
to the escape of the above mentioned under trials, and from
the evidence obtained during the course of the investigation
of the case, it is apparent that the said Shri V.M. Gill, was
involved in the conspiracy to facilitate the escape of the under
trials by willfully neglecting his duties and by providing them
VED MITTER GILL v. UNION TERRITORY ADMN.,
85
CHANDIGARH [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
support in different forms. This is evident from some of the A
following instances:-
( 1) Curtains were allowed to be hung on doors and windows
from inside the barrack occupied by the said under trials,
resulting in absence of visibility from outside and facilitating B
the prisoners to carry out their plans unobserved in violation
of paras 324, 327 and 328 of the Punjab Jail Manual, 1996
as adopted for the Union Territory, Chandigarh. The said
Shri Gill, willfully ignored the suspicious activities of the under
trials and did not conduct special search of their barrack in C
violation of paras 97, 98, 100(a), (b) & (f) of the said Manual.
(2) No action was taken by the said Shri V.M. Gill despite
reports of lights of the barrack housing the said under trials
being switched off during the night hours, playing of television D
or radio at high volume and continuous flowing of water,
facilitating activities of the said under trials in digging of the
escape tunnel and disposing the excavated soil, in violation
of paras 325 and 329 of the said Manual.
(3) No thorough checking of the barrack housing the under
trials was carried out by the said Shri Gill in violation of
provisions of the said Manual, including para 97.
E
(4) A tunnel was reportedly discovered in the barrack then F
housing the three under trials of the Beant Singh case during
June, 2002. The said Shri V.M. Gill in complicity with the
under trials and other jail officials suppresses these facts.
In November, 2002 a large number of prohibited articles
were recovered from the above mentioned under trials, G
which had been earlier allowed to be delivered to them in
complicity with the under trials as well as their coconspirators. After recovery of the prohibited articles, strict
action as warranted under Punjab Jail Manual was not taken H
86
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 5 S.C.R.
against the under trials or any other delinquent jail official.
The investigation have revealed that a large number of
prohibited articles have again been recovered from the cell
of the escaped under trials, clearly indicating the complicity
of the said Shri V.M. Gill, who willfully contravened the
provisions of the said Manual including paras 105 and 110.
It was also found that a number of articles such as cell phone
(not recovered), weight lifting iron rod, rope, emergency light,
radio, portable fan, electric wires etc., directly assisted the
said under trials to escape from the Jail.
(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.
(6) The said Sh. Gill, was arrested on Jan. 27, 2004 and on
his disclosure statement a book titled 'True Stories of great
escapes' was recovered from his official residence in the
jail. A rough site plan prepared by the police revealed that
the tunnel through which the under trials escaped had
similarities with the tunnel mentioned in the said book.
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 antinational 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
VED MITIER GILL v. UNION TERRITORY ADMN.,
87
CHANDIGARH [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.J
initiated so long as he remains in service, for fear of earning A
h:s wrath in future. Further, due to the involvement of the
escaped under trials, with the Babbar K~alsa International,
a known and dreaded terrorist organiz~tion, no witness is
likely to come forward to depose against him in the
disciplinary proceedings, if initiated, due to fear of life. B
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
C
(2) (b) of the Constitution of India and the Punjab Civil
Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 as made
applicable to the employees of Union Territory, Chandigarh,
is not reasonably practicable;
D
And whereas I am of the view that in the face of such grave
culpable acts of omission and commission there is no
justification for the continuation in service of Shri Gill as he
has betrayed all responsibility placed upon him by law and
rules. From the facts that have transpired, I conclude that E
there has been misconduct of such magnitude by Shri V.M.
Gill that the severest penalty permissible by law is called
for.
Now, therefore, I being the competent authority exercising F
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.
Sd/-
G
Advisor to the Administrator,
U.T., Chandigarh
Dated 1.3.2004"
Orders passed against the other petitioners were premised H
88
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 5 S.C.R.
A on the same foundation, and were to the same effect.
10. During the course of hearing learned counsel for
the appellant/petitioners pleaded, non-application of mind,
arbitrariness, discrimination, and malice in fact as well as in
B law. Insofar as the issue of non- application of mind is
concerned, it was the vehement contention of the learned
counsel, that they were not assigned duties as would render
them blameworthy for the abovementioned jail-break. Besides
various contentions advanced on the instant aspect of the
C matter, the primary submission of the learned counsel was,
that personnel from the police department were in overall
supervisory control, and that, they regulated not only the ingress
and egress of jail mates and other visitors, but also materials
D and articles which were permitted to enter the jail premises.
In the above background, it was the vehement contention of
the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioners, that they have
been made scapegoats for something that others were truly
responsible for.
E
11. To adjudicate upon the above contention advanced
at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioners,
it is necessary to understand the duties and responsibilities
assigned to appellant-Ved Mitter Gill, whose case has been
F taken as the lead case. The duty chart depicting tne
responsibilities assigned to the officers of Model Jail, Burail,
Chandigarh, is available on the record of the case. A relevant
extract thereof is being reproduced hereunder:
G
H
"1. Sh. V.M. Gill. Dy. Supdt. Jail
He shall perform his duties under the immediate
directions and orders of the Supdt. Jail. The duties of
the Dy. Supdt. Jail are contained in para 91 to 132 of the
Punjab Jail Manual. In addition to his normal duty he will
VED MITTER GILL v. UNION TERRITORY ADMN.,
89
CHANDIGARH [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
hold the charge of matters relating to:-
A
i)
Establishment
ii)
Accounts
iii)
iv)
xxx
Court cases (pending in various courts)
Diet purchase and all miscellaneous matters."
)()()(
)()()(
IMPORTANT NOTE
1.
Besides above duties Executive Officers will perform
all other duties assigned to them from time to time in
accordance with the provision of Punjab Jail Manual.
B
c
2. All Executive Officer will be present inside Jail in their
D
respective executive charge daily at the time of lock-up
and lock-outs.
3.
All will make night rounds to see the security
arrangements and satisfy themselves that inmates are
in safe custody.
4. All will accompany the Superintendent Jail on his
weekly parade (on every Monday) inspection of prisoners
as per provision of para 75 of the Punjab Jail Manual.
Sci/-
Superintendent,
Model Jail, Chandigarh"
(emphasis is ours)
A perusal of the duty chart relating to Ved Mitter Gill reveals,
that he was responsible for duties expressed in paragraphs
E
F
G
92 to 132 of the Punjab Jail Manual. Extracts of the Punjab
Jail Manual are also available on record of the case, only a
few relevant paragraphs, which highlight the duties and H
90
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 5 S.C.R.
A responsibilities vested on the shoulders of Ved Mitter Gill as
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jail, are being extracted
hereunder:
B
c
D
"97. Duties of Deputy Superintendent as to safety of
prisoners. discipline. visits and attendance. - (1) The
Deputy Superintendent shall do an acts and things which
may be necessary or expedient for ensuring the safe
custody of all prisoners at any time received into or
confined in the jail, as well as for enforcing and
maintaining discipline and order amongst such prisoners
and all subordinate officers of the jail at any time serving
under his orders or control.
(2) The Deputy Superintendent shall. atleast once in everv
twenty-four hours,- ·
(a) himself see everv prisoner for the time being
confined in the jail;
E
(b) visit everv barrack. ward. cell. compartment. and
every other part of the jail and the premises thereof.
including the hospital; and shall. save as provided in
the rules, regulations. directions and orders for the time
being in force in that behalf, always remain present
F
within the jail or the premises thereof.
Note- The Deputy Superintendent is permitted to be
absent for meals at such times and for such periods as
the Superintendent may specify, or when required to
G
appear in a Court of Justice, or when leave of absence
is granted by the Superintendent.
xxx
xxx
xxx
H
100. Duties as to lock-up, counting. labour. food and
VED MITTER GILL v. UNION TERRITORY ADMN.,
91
CHANDIGARH [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
reporting unusual occurrences.- (1) It shall be the duty of
A
the Deputy Superintendent to-
( a) be present every evening when the prisoners are
locked up for the night and every morning when the
prisoners are taken out of the sleeping wards. cells or
B
other compartments;
(b) satisfy himself. both night and morning. that all the
prisoners are present and in safe custody;
(c) allot to each prisoner sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment a proper task and satisfy
himself that every such prisoner, who is fit for labour,
is daily put to proper labour and performs his allotted
task and, for this purpose, to check the tasks allotted
and visit the workshops frequently while the prisoners
are engaged at work;
(d) be present at and superintend the daily weighing
and serving out of rations and satisfy himself that the
food-stuffs are properly cleaned and cooked;
(e) supervise the distribution of food and satisfy himself
that each prisoner receives his proper quantities at
the prescribed times, and to
(f) forthwith report every unusual occurrence of a
serious nature, to the Superintendent.
(2) The Superintendent may by a written order take over
c
D
E
F
such of the duties of the Deputy Superintendent as he
G
may deem necessary for the efficient running of the jail.
(3) Every action taken under sub-rule (2) shall forthwith
be reported by the Superintendent to the InspectorH
92
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 5 S.C.R.
A
General giving full justification therefor and the InspectorGeneral may confirm, modify or cancel such order.
101. Duty of Deputy Superintendent on admission of
prisoner. - Upon the admission of every prisoner the
B
Deputy Superintendent shall-
(a) examine or cause to the examined the warrant or
order under which such prisoner is committed to the
Jail and satisfy himself that it is in all respects
c
complete, in order and valid;
(b) remove. or cause to be removed, from such
prisoner all money or other articles found on him,
including (if such prisoner is not. by law. entitled to
D
retain it) his wearing apparel and (in such case) shall
provide him with a complete Jail out-fit;
(c) take measures to preserve and protect all property
taken from, or belonging to, the prisoner which may
E
come into his hands; and
F
( d) shall satisfy himself that the provisions of Chapter
IV of the Act, and these rules, as to the admission of
prisoners, are duly complied with.
)()()(
)()()(
)()()(
105. Deputy Superintendent to search weekly for
prohibited articles.-
G
The Deputy Superintendent shall. at uncertain times. at
least once a week. cause each prisoner. and all clothing
and bedding. and all wards, cells and other
compartments. workshops. latrines and other places
frequented by prisoners. to be thoroughly searched for
H
prohibited articles.
VED MITIER GILL v. UNION TERRITORYADMN.,
93
CHANDIGARH [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
106. Deputy Superintendent to regulate interviews and
A
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
B
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
C
held.
xxx
xxx
xxx
110. Deputy Superintendent to hold parade every
D
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,
E
(a) carefully inspect every prisoner;
(b) examine the clothing, bedding and utensils etc., of
every prisoner;
(c) check the muster roll and satisfy himself that every
prisoner is present or accounted for;
and satisfy himself generally that evervthing is in proper
F
order. He shall enter a report of his inspection in his
G
. journal. noting therein the state of the clothing. cleanliness.
numerical strength and other matters of importance
relating to the prisoners.
xxx
xxx
xxx
H
94
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 5 S.C.R.
A
117. The Deputy Superintendent shall enter daily in his
iournal:-
B
c
D
(a) the time the wards were opened;
(b) the members of the staff (if any) who were absent;
(c) the time prisoners began work;
(d) the time work was stopped in the forenoon and
when it was recommenced;
( e) the time work was stopped for the day; and
(f) the time the lock-up was completed;
(g) that the gratings and locks of the jail were got tested
and found intact.
xxx
xxx
xxx
120. Deputy Superintendent responsible for the efficiency
E
of the guard.-
( 1) The Deputy Superintendent shall satisfy himself that
a sufficient strength of the guard to meet all
emergencies is at all times present at the jail and
F
ready to be armed. and that the warders sleep in the
quarters allotted to them and do not leave the jail
premises without permission.
(2) The Deputy and the Assistant Superintendent shall
G
at least once a week in addition to their routine night
round search the relieved and relieving night guards
between the gates (after 10 P.M. and before 4.00
AM.)."
H
(emphasis is ours)
VED MITTER GILL v. UNION TERRITORY ADMN.,
95
CHANDIGARH [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
It is not necessary for us to further delve into the nature of duties A
assigned to appellant-Ved Mitter Gill in his capacity as Deputy
Superintendent Jail, because we have highlighted the relevant
paragraphs of Punjab Jail Manual, which meticulously highlight
the nature of his duties and responsibilities. Having examined
the same, we are satisfied, that the responsibility of jail inmates B
exclusively rests on the shoulders of the jail staff. On the
evaluation of the duties and responsibilities of posts of
Assistant Superintendent Jail, Head Warder and Warder, there
remains no room for any doubt, about the other petitioners C
also, that they too were similarly responsible for securing the
detention of all jail inmates. We, therefore find no merit in the
contention advanced on behalf of the appellant/petitioners, that
it was not them, but police personnel from the Chandigarh
Police Department, who were responsible for the supervisory o
control over jail inmates, at the Model Jail, Burail, Chandigarh.
12.
Another contention advanced at the hands of the
learned counsel for the appellant/petitioners was, that the entire
action initiated at the hands of the respondents was vitiated, E
on account of malice in fact as also malice in law. Insofar as
the instant aspect of matter is concerned, our attention has
been invited to the factual position pleaded in Civil
Miscellaneous Nos. 8930-31 of 2010 in Civil Writ Petition
No.5147-CAT of 2007. It would be pertinent to mention, that F
the aforesaid civil miscellaneous application was filed by Dalbir
Singh Sandhu, Deputy Superintendent of Police. Our pointed
attention was invited to the following factual position expressed
in the aforesaid civil miscellaneous application:
" .... Interestingly a perusal of the record filed before the
Criminal Court by the Chandigarh Police of the Special
Mulakat Register shows that in those copies the
signatures of the supervisory staff i.e. the Chandigarh
G
H
96
A
B
c
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 5 S.C.R.
Police is missing. Apparently these documents have
been also considered by the competent authority to pass
the impugned order against the petitioner. Photocopies
of some of the pages of the Special Mulakat Register
have been annexed earlier. The typed copies of the same
for the corresponding days as submitted by the
prosecution before the Criminal Court and apparently
which were considered by the competent authority to
terminate the services of the petitioner are annexed
herewith asAnnexuresA/1 andA/2 respectively."
Having given our thoughtful consideration to the pleadings
extracted hereinabove, and having perused the annexuresA/
1 and A/2 referred to in the above pleadings, we are satisfied
0 that the contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel
for the appellant/petitioners is wholly misconceived. The
presence of police personnel to extend external support to a
jail facility is understandable. There is nothing wrong about
the same. Police personnel may be posted outside the jail
E premises, for obvious reasons. Such police personnel would
be oblivious of the activities within the four walls of the jail itself.
The presence of police personnel within the administrative
framework of a jail, is out of the question. The appellant/
petitioners have not placed any material on the record of the
F case to demonstrate, that police personnel from the police
department were assigned duties within the barracks of Model
Jail, Burail, Chandigarh. In our considered view, within the jail
premises, only the jail staff can be permitted to function. And
in case of lapses within the jail premises, it is the jail staff alone
G which is responsible. Based on the factual position brought to
our notice from the pleadings and annexures referred to above,
it is not possible for us to accept the submission advanced at
the hands of the learnedcounsel for the appellant/petitioners,
H that the action initiated against the appellant/petitioners can
VED MITIER GILL v. UNION TERRITORY ADMN.,
97
CHANDIGARH [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
be vitiated for the reasons of malice in fact or malice in law.
A
13.