Read Time: 09 minutes
IPS Officer Singh, who joined the Indian Police Service in 1994 and was later assigned to the Chhattisgarh cadre, was included in a review of 33 IPS officers by the Chhattisgarh State Government. According to a letter dated December 6, 2021, the review, conducted under Rule 16(3) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, concluded that these officers were not fit for continued government service, leading the Review Committee to recommend their retirement.
The Delhi High Court, recently, upheld the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) to reinstate Chhattisgarh cadre IPS Officer Gurjinder Pal Singh. The observations were made in an appeal filed by the Central Government challenging the order of the tribunal.
The bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Girish Kathpalia held, “It is relevant to note here that proceedings in all the above three FIRs were stayed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh and without waiting for the outcome, order compulsory retiring respondent No.1 has been passed by the petitioner as a short cut method without even waiting for conclusion of departmental proceedings”.
The tribunal overturned an order, passed by the President in consultation with the State of Chhattisgarh, which had compulsorily retired Chhattisgarh cadre IPS Officer Gurjinder Pal Singh under Rule 16(3) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958. The Tribunal also directed the Central Government and the State of Chhattisgarh to reinstate IPS Officer Gurjinder Pal Singh with consequential benefits.
IPS Officer Singh argued before the Tribunal that on March 12, 2012, Rahul Sharma, the then Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, committed suicide, and in his suicide note, he cited ‘harassment by an interfering boss’ and ‘an arrogant and haughty judge of the high court’ as the reasons. IPS Officer Singh was the Supervisory Officer of the deceased, but after a CBI investigation, no case for abetment to suicide was found against him. Thus, the CBI filed a closure report on September 11, 2013, which was conveyed to the Chief Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, by letter dated September 20, 2013.
IPS Officer Singh claimed that on November 6, 2020, more than four years after Rahul Sharma's suicide and the filing of the closure report on September 11, 2013, the Central Government constituted a five-member Inquiry Committee, against which he filed an appeal before the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal. Additionally, three successive FIRs were lodged against the respondent.
Central Government argued before the Tribunal that the cases of 33 IPS officers, who had completed 15/25 years of service or reached 50 years of age, were reviewed. The order of compulsory retirement was issued only after multiple proposals and revised proposals were sent by the State of Chattisgarh, considering IPS Officer Singh's entire service record and in the public interest.
The Tribunal, by the impugned judgment and order dated April 30, 2024, set aside the order dated July 20, 2023, directing Central Governments to reinstate IPS Officer Singh with all consequential benefits.
Central Government challenged the order dated April 30, 2024, on the grounds that the Tribunal failed to consider that the allegations raised by IPS Officer Singh were vague, without substance, and failed to demonstrate any malice.
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, representing the Central Government, argued that the Review Committee had considered IPS Officer Singh's service records on two occasions, December 4, 2021, and February 20, 2023, which included overall performance, service quality, conduct, and outlook, and subsequently recommended his compulsory retirement in the public interest.
Advocate Ankur Chhibber, representing IPS Officer Singh, countered that the order dated July 20, 2023, was passed with the malafide intention to pre-empt the adjudication of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him and was neither based on the material on record nor made in the public interest.
The court noted that the Central Government reviewed the service records of 33 IPS officers under Rule 16(3) of the 1958 Rules, including IPS Officer Singh, and determined that his case warranted compulsory retirement. However, the Court found several issues with this decision.
Firstly, an earlier investigation into IPS Officer Singh, related to the suicide of a Superintendent of Police, had been closed by the CBI in 2013, but a five-member committee was later constituted to review it, which was deemed unjustified. The court also noted that the reopening of this case, without new grounds, appeared to be an attempt to harass IPS Officer Singh.
Additionally, the court reviewed the downgrading of IPS Officer Singh's Annual Performance Report (APAR) for 2019-2020, finding discrepancies in how his service record was assessed. The court also highlighted that the High Court had stayed FIRs filed against IPS Officer Singh for various allegations. Yet, the Central Government proceeded with his compulsory retirement without concluding the departmental proceedings.
The court ultimately found no strong evidence against IPS Officer Singh and concluded that the order for his compulsory retirement was unjustified. Accordingly, the court upheld the tribunal's decision to reinstate IPS Officer Singh and dismissed the appeal filed by the Central Government.
Case Title: Union Of India v Gurjinder Pal Singh & Anr
Please Login or Register
