Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed Gujarat IPS Officer Satish Chandra Verma’s plea against the Union Government’s dismissal order.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva upheld the order of the Union government dismissing Verma, who probed the Ishrat Jahan encounter case, a month before his scheduled retirement.

“In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed”, the court said while pronouncing the order.

Verma was dismissed from service on August 30, 2022, after a departmental inquiry found him guilty of various charges. He was accused of engaging with the public media on March 2 and 3, 2016 in an interview with a news channel, without any authorization or permission from the competent authority, and spoke unauthorizedly on matters that were not within the scope of his duties. He was also charged with communicating official information regarding the interrogation of a senior officer in the Government.

Notably, the apex court, on September 19, 2022, had stayed the Centre’s dismissal order for a week and said it is for the high court to consider the question as to whether the stay or vacation of dismissal order is to continue. Subsequently, on September 26, 2022, the bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela refused to stay the dismissal of Gujarat IPS Officer Satish Chandra Verma, a month before his scheduled retirement. 

Senior Advocate Sudhanshu Batra, appearing for Verma had contended that there is no denying that an interview was given to a news channel reporter, but he claimed that it was granted under “compelling circumstances”. He also stated that the contents of the interview were not proven by the law.

The bench had stated that it is undisputed that Verma gave an interview to a news channel about matters that were not within the scope of his duties at the time of the interview, and the interview also pertained to aspects that were sub-judice.

After perusal of the contents of the transcript of the interview, the bench had ordered that “We are of the view that at this stage the order of termination dated 30.08.2022 does not warrant any interference as petitioner is to superannuate, in any event, on 30.09.2022. Consequently, we are not inclined to stay or interdict the order of dismissal dated 30.08.2022 at this stage.”

The bench had also clarified that if the writ petition is successful, the petitioner will be entitled to all consequential benefits of his superannuation by the rules.

Case Title: Satish Chandra Verma v. UOI & Ors.