GOV OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. JAI BHAGWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We preface our decision by noting the argument of learned 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 urged that the respondents are not entitled to any hearing. The argument is emotional and is rejected at the outset for the 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 on the one side and his daughter Margret and his son-in-law Roper in the play "A Man For All 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:

(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 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 v. Tulsiram Patel, 1985 3 SCC 398 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.