A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S V N Bhatti said it was not inclined to interfere with the Delhi High Court order pertaining to former additional director general of police Gurjinder Pal Singh.
The high court on August 23 dismissed a challenge by the Centre against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on a plea moved by the 1994-batch IPS officer, which not only set aside the order of compulsory retirement passed on July 20, 2023, but also directed his reinstatement with consequential benefits.
The Centre argued the order of compulsory retirement was duly passed in public interest in terms of the service rules and CAT usurped its jurisdiction while evaluating the evidence with respect to the criminal complaints, the downgrading of the annual performance appraisal report as well as the various disciplinary proceedings against the officer.
"The petitioners have not been able to show anything adverse in the service record of respondent number 1 (Singh). The filing of various FIRs is premised upon the alleged recovery made from Mani Bhushan pursuant to raids conducted at his premises. In light of the statement of Mani Bhushan, an SBI officer, the allegation against respondent number 1 does not appear to be such strong to direct compulsory retirement of respondent number 1," the high court said.
The high court verdict, while dismissing the Centre's plea, observed the CAT order of April 30, 2024, suffered "from no infirmity". The high court underscored the stay on the proceedings in the three FIRs against the officer by the Chhattisgarh High Court, and said without awaiting the outcome of the proceedings or the conclusion of the departmental proceedings, an order of his compulsory retirement was passed "as a short cut".
The court further observed that despite a delay of three years, even an "inquiry officer" was not appointed in the departmental proceedings against Singh and the CAT rightly took a "serious note of this fact" in its decision.
The high court observed that "reopening" of proceedings in an alleged case of abetment of suicide against him without any reasoning or any fresh ground, especially when the CBI closure report stated otherwise, and it was accepted by the court, was an attempt to harass him.
Singh, before the Supreme Court, submitted that the Chhattisgarh government machinery was being used to harass him and tarnish his reputation as he had declined "illegal favours" to various high-ranking officials of the state, and to falsely implicate members of the erstwhile government in the Nagrik Apurti Nigam "scam".
About The Author
Comment List