Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. This is one of those rare cases in which, I am of the opinion that a formal inquiry was not practicable but circumstances of depiction of acceptance of illegal gratification in the office is apparent and self established.

5. Insofar as, OA No.2200/2006 is concerned, Vinod Kashyap, the applicant, was appointed as Assistant Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, Delhi in the year 1989. It is his case that he had always performed his duties with utmost devotion, sincerity and honesty, and that he was given cash awards by the competent authority, i.e., Director General of Prisons, and that he has to his credit as many as 50 rewards/honorariums for his meritorious service. It is further his case that in the year 1999 he risked his life to prevent a riotous situation in Jail No.5 and was recommended for conferment of Presidents award (gallantry reward) and out of turn promotion; he was, however, denied out of turn promotion out of bias of certain jail officials. He had challenged his non-promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent Grade-II before this Tribunal, and his OA No.639/2002 in that behalf was allowed vide order dated 1.8.2005. One Shri Ravi Sharma, it is then the case of the applicant, along with his co-accused was previously lodged in Jail No.5 under the charge of the applicant in connection with FIR No.194/97 u/s 302/307/34 IPC, PS Dabri. He was admitted as an under trial in the jail on 6.4.1997 and finally released on bail on 15.2.2001. In between he was granted interim bail on four occasions. He is presently a correspondent with the news channel Aaj Tak. He was later on acquitted by the court, although his co-accused were found guilty. While the applicant was posted at Jail No.5, the said Ravi Sharma alias Ravinder was lodged in Jail No.5. It is the case of the applicant that he being a strict officer became the eyesore of many prisoners including Ravi Sharma, who later on joined Aaj Tak as a crime reporter and along with certain officers of the Jail department hatched a conspiracy to malign the image of the applicant. He allegedly undertook a sting operation and a video recording of the same was telecast on Aaj Tak on 4.5.2005. It is pleaded that the applicant is in possession of the CD recorded by him from TV telecast on 4.5.2005 and 5.5.2005 and is prepared to play it in the Court. Vide order dated 27.9.2005, which was served on the applicant on 29.9.2005, the disciplinary authority, i.e., Director General of Prisons, dismissed him from service. It is the case of the applicant that Ravi Sharma is openly taking credit of the sting operation, and even during second week of December, 2005, the CD was again telecast and Ravi Sharma took the entire credit for the operation by projecting himself as a crusader against the corruption rampant in Government departments. Aggrieved of the order aforesaid, the applicant preferred an appeal, which has been rejected vide order dated 2.2.2006 even though, considering his meritorious service record, the punishment has been reduced to that of removal from service. These are the orders that have been challenged in the present Application.

As a policy their company does not allow their journalists/reporters to join investigation of any kind and that the reporters/journalists have performed their duties in public interest to inform the public.

Moreover the channel Aaj Tak is a 24x7 hours channel, and therefore, they cannot afford the absence of any journalists/reporters in any investigation as they are fully engaged in their operations. 13..It is difficult to construe from the telecast that there was any technical fabrication involved just to put the charged official down. It defies credibility to suggest that the charged officials action in receiving the money had either been fabricated or that he himself did not figure in the tape. The Committee of three senior jail officials have clearly confirmed that the charged official did indeed figure in the video tape that was telecast. Also 14 or 15 other officials of Tihar Jail. Similarly figured in the tape which was telecast the same evening and on the following evening also. This seriously dilutes, if not completely eliminates any suggestion of technical fabrication.

The simultaneous telecast of several jail officials including the charged official in such circumstances is important enough to lead to an over-whelming presumption that there is nothing wrong with the integrity of the telecast or its contents itself. 14. Given the fact that there was the categorical refusal of M/s Aaj Tak to participate in the departmental inquiry, the question before the disciplinary authority/Director General (Prisons) who is responsible for the administration and security of the jail was one of beginning a disciplinary proceeding against several officials including the charged official who figured in the telecast and initiating a protracted inquiry with the likely non-participation of crucial witnesses. The related question before him was whether or not these circumstances would only benefit the charged official and others like him in an undue and uncalled for manner, when there was an overwhelming presumption of indulgence and serious misconduct and wrong doing involving the acceptance of illegal gratification to extend favours. 16. On carefully going through the relevant Government instructions under Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) rules 1965, it is observed that these are merely illustrative and the instructions themselves say so. These are not exclusive and do not exclude circumstances prevalent in the jail around the period the Aaj Tak telecast was made. Given the fact that well over a dozen jail employees were shown in the telecast accepting money as illegal gratification in lieu of favour of promise and there was an atmosphere not only of indiscipline but also lack of integrity prevalent at that time and this was not confined to the charged official alone, there was ample justification to invoke extraordinary provisions. Considering the meritorious service record of the applicant, as mentioned above, the applicant was, however, removed from service.

29. We may refer to a recent decision of the Honble Supreme Court in R. K. Anand (supra), on which both parties have placed strong reliance. A well known English language news channel called NDTV telecast a programme on May 30, 2007 in which one Sunil Kulkarni was shown meeting with I.U.Khan, Special Public Prosecutor, and R.K.Anand, senior defence counsel, and two others, and negotiating for his sell out in favour of the defence for a very high price. According to NDTV, the programme was based on a clandestine operation carried out by means of a concealed camera with Kulkarni acting as a mole. What appeared in the telecast was outrageous and tended to confirm the cynical but widely held belief that in this country the rich and the mighty enjoyed some kind of corrupt and extra-constitutional immunity that put them beyond the reach of the criminal justice system. Shocked by the programme, the Delhi High Court suo moto initiated criminal proceedings for contempt against R.K.Anand, I.U.Khan and Bhagwan Sharma, an associate of Anand. Notice was issued to those against whom criminal proceedings for contempt were initiated. They were given full opportunity to defend themselves. According to NDTV, in all these operations a total of five microchips were used. Four out of those five microchips were available with them in completely untouched and unaltered condition, and only one chip was reformatted after its contents were transferred onto a CD. When the High Court took suo moto notice of the matter, it directed the Registrar to collect all materials that may be available in respect of the telecast including copies of CDs/Video and transcript and submit the same for consideration within ten days. The Court also directed NDTV to preserve the original material including the CDs/Video pertaining to the aforesaid sting operation, and as mentioned above, four out of five microchips were available and were taken into possession. The Court recorded statement of the counsel appearing for NDTV that its order had been fully complied with. The Court required a further affidavit regarding the telecast based on the sting operation, and accordingly directed NDTV to file an affidavit concerning the sting operation from the stage it was conceived and the attendant circumstances, details of the recording done, i.e., the time and place etc. and other relevant circumstances. In compliance of the aforesaid directions, Poonam Agarwal, programme incharge, NDTV, filed an affidavit as required. On the material that came before the Court, prima facie action for contempt was deemed appropriate, and, therefore, notices were issued. Registry was directed to supply copies of the order passed by the Court dated 7.8.2007, affidavit of Ms. Poonam Agarwal dated 23.7.2007 together with annexures including the four copies of CDs filed along with the affidavit, copy of the corrected transcripts filed on 6.8.2007, and copies of 6 CDs, including one edited and five unedited, containing the original footage which were produced on 6.6.2007. NDTV was also asked to make available to the Registry sufficient number of copies of the CDs and transcripts, which the Registry had to supply to the notices. The contemnors were given full fledged hearing, their replies obtained and they were heard by adhering to all principles of natural justice. The contemnors were held guilty by the High Court, and, but for one contemnor, the order of the High Court was upheld by the Supreme Court. Whereas, counsel representing the respondents would rely upon this judgment to say that sting operations can be relied upon to return a finding of guilt, the counsel representing the applicants, without joining any issue on the contention of the learned counsel as noted above, would, however, state that to place reliance upon sting operations emanating from CDs, the first and the foremost requirement is to find out the authenticity of the material recorded in the CD, and further that before returning a finding of guilt, the concerned person has to be heard. Whereas, the counsel representing the respondents may be right to state that sting operations can be relied upon to return a finding of guilt, counsel for the applicants is also equally right to contend that the verdict of guilt cannot be returned unless a finding be given with regard to authenticity of the recorded version of the CD and a proper opportunity having been granted to the accused or the delinquent, as the case may be. In the present case, we find that there is no finding returned by the concerned authorities that the CD that they had watched was genuine and there was no scope of it being tampered, altered or morphed. No material has been placed on records of the present case as well from where such a finding can be returned. No opportunity whatsoever has been given to the employees to prove that the CD produced by the authorities was a made-up affair simply with a view to gain popularity by the news channel Aaj Tak. We are not commenting anything with regard to genuineness of the CDs produced before the authorities, as that is a matter that shall have to be decided by the concerned authorities. All that we are saying is that on the basis of unedited and edited versions of CDs produced before the authorities and without there being a finding with regard to its genuineness, no finding of availability of overwhelming evidence against the employees could be returned. Having said so, we may still refer to some salient features of the case decided by the Honble Supreme Court. Cross examination of Poonam Agarwal was declined, but while doing so the High Court had observed that what transpired between R. K. Anand and Kulmarni in the sting meetings was there on the microchips and the CDs, copied from those chips, for anyone to see and no statement by Poonam Agarwal in his cross examination would alter that even slightly. The High Court also recorded the finding that the microchips were not subjected to any tampering etc. and, therefore, rejected the petition for proceeding against NDTV for perjury. A firm finding of fact thus came to be recorded that what transpired between Anand and Kulmarni in the sting meetings was there on the microchips which were genuine and not subjected to any tampering etc. The High Court had spent a full day viewing all the sting recordings, the recording of the programmes telecast by NDTV on May 30, 2007 and the eight-minute CD prepared by R. K. Anand. Present at the viewing were all the counsel as also R. K. Anand. The transcription of the talk between Kulkarni and Anand and others was audible and absolutely clear. The same was not even in dispute. The same has been reproduced in the judgment and clearly makes out a case constituting contempt against R. K. Anand and I. U. Khan. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant before the Honble Supreme Court that a proceeding under Contempt of Courts Act was quasi judicial in nature and it demanded the same standard of proof as required in a criminal trial to hold a person guilty of criminal contempt, was accepted by observing that there cannot be any disagreement with the proposition advanced by the appellant. It was, however, further noted that if the sting recordings are true and correct, no more evidence is required to see that R. K. Anand was trying to suborn a witness. It is significant to note that one of the appellants before the Honble Supreme Court was let off. The reason therefor was that the transcript of the sting recording submitted to the Court by the TV channel was confined only to the exchange between I.U.Khan and Kulkarni, and that in the absence of full transcript it became difficult and cumbersome to see what transpired between Kulkarni and Deepak Verma immediately before and after the meeting with their subject. In view of the Honble Supreme Court, that part of the recording was also highly relevant and important for judging the true import of the exchange that took place between Kulkarni and Khan. The salient features of the case as referred to above, have no parity with the facts of the case in hand. As mentioned above, there is no proof of authenticity of the edited and unedited CDs. No such finding was returned. No comparison with the original chip was done. The transcription, even as relied upon by the respondents and mentioned in the impugned orders, does not make any sense. It is not possible to make out from the said transcription as to whether the employees had demanded money, and if so, for what purpose. In some of the cases, there is no transcription of the dialogue between the employees and those who conducted the sting operation. The employees were given no opportunity to defend themselves. Even the edited and unedited versions of the CDs were not supplied to them. Insofar as, the contention of the learned counsel representing the respondents that the applicants had taken no action against the TV channel Aaj Tak by not filing any defamation or damages proceedings is concerned, we are of the view that no parallel can be drawn from the facts as available before the Honble High Court and Supreme Court in the case of R. K. Anand with the facts of the present case. The contemnors before the Court were highly established lawyers knowing their rights under law. Even if they had not proceeded against the TV channel NDTV, a presumption of guilt may arise because of their conduct. The same, however, cannot be said with regard to the employees whose only anxiety would be to save their jobs. They have no financial resources nor expertise in law, as the contemnors before the Honble High Court and Supreme Court may have had. Further, the conduct of the contemnors came to be commented in the context of the proof or evidence available against them. We have already mentioned that the conduct of a person alone may not be a sole determining factor in returning a finding of guilt, be it a criminal case or a departmental proceeding. The same has to be seen and assessed in the context of evidence available. Before we may part with this aspect of the case, we may only mention that one of the persons who carried out the sting operation in Tihar Jail happened to be Ravi Sharma, who was himself an under trial prisoner in a murder case, and had remained in Tihar Jail for some time.