New Delhi, Aug 24 (PTI) The Delhi High Court has upheld the reinstatement of former additional director general of police of Chhattisgarh Gurjinder Pal Singh, who was compulsorily retired by authorities following FIRs against him for alleged corruption, extortion and sedition.
A bench headed by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait dismissed a challenge by the Centre against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on a plea moved by the 1994-batch Indian Police Service (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 had argued that the order of compulsory retirement was duly passed in public interest in terms of the service rules and that the CAT usurped its jurisdiction while evaluating the evidence in respect of the criminal complaints, the downgrading of the annual performance appraisal report (APAR) 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 no.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 no.1 does not appear to be such strong to direct compulsory retirement of respondent no.1,” the bench, also comprising Justice Girish Kathpalia, said.
“Having noted above the totality of facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the learned tribunal suffers from no infirmity and thus, the present petition and pending applications are dismissed,” the court’s judgment dated August 23 concluded.
In the judgment, the court said the proceedings in the three FIRs against the officer were stayed by the Chhattisgarh High Court, but without awaiting the outcome of the proceedings or the conclusion of the departmental proceedings, the order compulsorily retiring him was passed “as a short cut”.
The court further observed that despite a delay of three years, even an “enquiry officer” was not appointed in the departmental proceedings against Singh and the CAT rightly took a “serious note of this fact” in its decision.
It also said the “reopening” of proceedings against the officer in a case of alleged abetment of suicide, “without any reasoning or any fresh ground, especially when the closure report (of the CBI) mentioned that no case was made out against him, which was accepted by the court, is nothing but an apparent attempt to harass”.
Singh, in his submissions made in the Supreme Court in another matter related to the FIRs against him, has alleged that the Chhattisgarh government machinery was being used to harass him and tarnish his reputation as he had declined “illegal favours” to various high-ranked officials of the state, and to falsely implicate members of the erstwhile government in the Nagrik Apurti Nigam (NAN) “scam”.
