Allegation Against Him Not Strong: Delhi HC Affirms Reinstatement Of Compulsorily Retired IPS Officer Gurjinder Singh In Corruption Case
|The Delhi High Court upheld the reinstatement of compulsorily retired IPS (Indian Police Service) Officer Gurjinder Pal Singh in corruption and sedition case, saying that the allegation against him is not strong.
The Court was deciding a writ petition preferred against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) by which compulsory retiring Gurjinder under Rule 16(3) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 was set aside and a direction was issued to reinstate him with consequential benefits.
A Division Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Girish Kathpalia said, “What is clinching is that despite delay of three years, even Enquiry Officer was not appointed in the department proceedings and the learned Tribunal has taken serious note of this fact in the impugned judgment, which in our opinion is just and proper in the facts of the present case. The petitioners have not been able to show anything adverse in the service record of respondent No.1. The filing of various FIRs, are premised upon alleged recovery made from Mani Bhushan pursuant to raids conducted at his premises. In light of the statement of Mani Bhushan, a SBI Officer, the allegation against respondent No.1 do not appear to be such strong to direct compulsory retirement of respondent No.1.”
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma represented the petitioner while Additional Advocate General (AAG) Avdhesh Kumar Singh and Advocate Ankur Chhibber represented the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
Gurjinder Pal Singh (respondent) had joined the IPS in Madhya Pradesh Cadre in 1994 and was reallocated to Chhattisgarh cadre. In 2021, the State Government of Chhattisgarh informed the Central Government (petitioner) that in terms of provisions of Rule 16(3) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, the record of 33 IPS officers of Chhattisgarh State were reviewed and the Review Committee did not find them fit to be retained in government service and recommended their retirement.
Pursuantly, the Centre sought certain documents from the State and while the recommendation proposal was under consideration, a proposal qua deemed resignation in respect of Myinthungo Tungoe, IPS came up. The Centre’s competent authority sent a proposal to retire the respondent which was approved. Consequently, the respondent was compulsorily retired from service and hence, he challenged the same before the Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the authorities to reinstate the respondent with all consequential benefits. Therefore, the petitioner was before the High Court.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel observed, “It is also worth to note here that three other IPS officers against whom inquiries were initiated along with respondent No.1, their names were dropped for one reason or the other but respondent No.1 has been roped in for the offences which do not even stand substantiated.”
The Court noted that while reopening the case of the respondent, that too without any reasoning or any fresh ground, especially when Closure Report mentioned that no case was made out against him, which was accepted by the Court, is nothing but an apparent attempt to harass him.
“With regard to FIR bearing No.134/2021, registered on 08.07.2021 under Sections 124A, 153A, 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 on the ground of seditious material; pursuant to statement of Mani Bhushan and his cross-examination it revealed that there was no recovery of seditious material from respondent No.1. The Tribunal thus held that this FIR was registered against respondent No.1 at the behest of higher authorities of the State Government as he did not toe the line of pressure”, it further noted.
The Court remarked that the order compulsorily retiring the respondent has been passed by the petitioner as a short cut method without even waiting for conclusion of departmental proceedings.
“… the Tribunal has rightly observed that the competent criminal court can decide the criminal case independently on its own merit and by observing so, has refrained itself from making observations on the merits of the FIRs”, it added.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Cause Title- Union of India v. Gurjinder Pal Singh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:6394-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: ASC Chetan Sharma, CGSC Harish V. Shankar, Advocates Amit Gupta, Vinay Yadav, Shubham Sharma, Srish Kumar, and Vikramaditya Singh.
Respondents: AAG Avdhesh Kumar Singh, Standing Counsel Prashant Singh, Advocates Ankur Chhibber, Mrinal Bharti, Y. Shukla, and Nikunj.